By  the  Same  Author 


HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY.     On  the 

Basis  of  Prof.  Rudolf  Sohm.     i6mo.    $i.oo. 

THE  OFFICIAL  RECOGNITION  OF 
WOMAN  IN  THE  CHURCH.  An  Histor- 
ical Study.     Large  i6mo.     15  cents. 


The  Higher  Criticism 


Mn  J^uflittB 


OF 


MODERN  BIBLICAL  STUDY 


REV.  C.  W.^RISHELL,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION 


PROF.  HENRY  M.  HARMAN,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 


CINCINNATI:  CRANSTON  &  CURTS. 

NEW  YORK :  HUNT  &  EATON. 

1893- 


Copyright 

BY  CRANSTON  &  CURTS, 

1898. 


PREFACE. 


This  book  has  been  written  for  the  purpose 
of  furnishing  a  concise  and  convenient  answer 
to  questions  frequently  asked  concerning  the 
higher  criticism.  Its  province  is  not  there- 
fore to  discuss  and  weigh,  but  to  report  the 
facts  of  the  subject.  Nevertheless,  the  care- 
ful reader  will  find  the  principles  stated  upon 
which  the  opponents  of  the  critics  proceed  in 
their  refutations. 

For  our  facts  we  have  gone  to  the  original 
sources,  whenever  they  were  accessible.  We 
have  not,  however,  referred  to  all  the  works 
consulted,  but  chose  those  for  reference  which 
were  found  most  helpful,  or  which  are  easiest 
of  access.  Zockler's  ''  Handbuch  der  Theo- 
logischen  Wissenschaften,"  Vol.  I,  and  Weiss* 
"Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament" — the 
former  on  the  entire  Bible,  the  latter  in  its 
own  department — were  constantly  in  use.  In 
this  connection  the  writer  wishes  to  express 

3 


4  PREFACE. 

his  gratitude  to  Librarian  Whelpley,  of  the 
Public  Library  of  Cincinnati,  and  his  intelli- 
gent assistants,  for  their  uniform  courtesy 
during  the  preparation  of  this  work.  The 
library  contains  a  most  excellent  collection  of 
theological  literature. 

Our  aim  has  been  to  give  chief  prominence 
to  the  views  of  the  more  conservative  critics, 
introducing  as  deviations  therefrom  the  opin- 
ions of  those  who  are  more  radical.  In  con- 
sulting brevity,  we  found  the  task  a  difficult 
one  of  keeping  these  views  separate.  Some 
study  on  the  part  of  the  reader  who  wishes  to 
understand  the  subject  is  therefore  expected. 

As,  in  the  course  of  several  years,  we  have 
investigated  this  subject,"  we  have  felt  as  one 
feels  when  a  dear  friend  is  on  trial.  And, 
pleased  with  the  concessions  his  enemies  made 
in  favor  of  the  excellence  of  his  character,  we 
could  scarce  refrain  from  shouting  aloud  our 
rejoicing  at  his  complete  vindication  by  his 
friends.  To  one  who  enters  upon  such  a 
course  of  study  with  the  experience  of  Bible 
religion  in  his  soul,  no  attacks  aimed  at  fun- 
damentals have  any  force.     But  it  is  a  constant 


PREFACE.  5 

source  of  satisfaction  to  see  that  the  vast  ma- 
jority of  the  critics  find  nothing  in  the  Bible 
to  shake  their  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  or  his 
gospel,  but  only  that  which  confirms. 

Part  V  is  a  reproduction  of  articles  con- 
nected with  the  general  subject  published  in 
the  Western  Christian  Advocate  during  the 
spring  of  1893.  This  will  account  for  some 
repetition  of  thought  which  the  reader  may 
possibly  notice. 

The  writer  desires  to  express  his  thanks  to 
the  Rev.  Professor  Henry  M.  Harman,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,  for  the  Introduction  he  has  written 
to  this  work.  His  "  Introduction  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  "  is  a  mine  of  information  on  every 
phase  of  higher  criticism,  which  we  heartily 
commend  to  our  readers  for  discussions  which 
could  not  find  place  here  without  changing 
the  entire  scope  and  purpose  of  the  work. 
CHARLES  W.  RISHELL. 

Cincinnati.  O.,  Jvnie  i,  1893. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Part  I. 

INTRODUCTORY  DISCUSSION. 

Page, 

?    I.  The  Aims  of  the  Higher  Critics, 17 

§    2.  The  Methods  of  the  Higher  Critics 23 

§   3.  Higher  Critical  Principles  and  Assumptions,  .    .  31 

Part  II. 

THE  OLD  TEvSTAMENT. 

?    4.  General  History  of  Old  Testament  Criticism,  .  .  42 

?    5.  History  of  Pentateuchal  Criticism 47 

§   6.  Present-day  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  •    •    •    •  53 

§    7.  The  Relative  and  Absolute  Age  of  the  Sources,  .  61 
i   8.  Summary   of   the   Argument    for   the    Dates  of 

D.  and  P 66 

§   9.  Criticism  of  the  Prophetical  Books 71 

?  10.  The  Book  of  Isaiah 73 

^11.  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel, 78 

^  12.  The  Minor  Prophets 80 

'i  13.  Zechariah 82 

^  14.  The  Book  of  Jonah 85 

^  15.  The  Book  of  Daniel 86 

'i  16.  The  Psalms 90 

§17.  The  Book  of  Proverbs, 96 

?  18.  The  Book  of  Job, loi 

7 


8  TABLE   OF  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

>/,  19.  Ecclesiastes, 106 

i^2o.  The  Song  of  Solomon no 

>^2i.  The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah 114 

i^22.  The  Book  of  Ruth, 117 

^23.  The  Book  of  Esther, 119 

^24.  The  Chronicles, 122 

Part  III. 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
^25.  General  History  of  New  Testament  Criticism,   .  129 

^  26.  Present-day  New  Testament  Criticism 135 

^27.  The  Synoptic  Question, 137 

^28.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew, 141 

^  29.  The  Gospel  of  Mark, 143 

^30.  The  Gospel  of  Luke, 144 

^31.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 148 

^32.  The  Gospel  of  John, 149 

iJ33.  The  Johannean  Epistles 152 

^34.  The  Book  of  Revelation 155 

i^35.  The  Epistle  of  James, 159 

^36.  First  and  Second  Peter 160 

^37.  The  Epistle  of  Jude, 162 

^38.  Galatians,  Romans,  and  i  and  2  Corinthians,    .    .  164 

i^  39.  First  and  Second  Thessalonians 169 

i^4o.  Ephesians, 171 

1^41.  Colossians, 172 


42.  Philemon, 173 

{^43.  Philippians, I74 

(^44.  The  Pastoral  Epistles, 175 

i:^45.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 177 


• 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS.  9 

Part  IV. 

ESTIMATE  OF  REStJLTS. 

Page. 
5^46.  Discrimination    of    Critical    Schools — Criticism 

in  Germany,  England,  x\merica,  France,  Switz- 
erland, and  Holland  Compared — Value  of  Crit- 
ical Conclusions — Criticism  not  to  be  Roundly 
Condemned — Traditional  View  not  to  be  Sum- 
marily Pronounced  Unscholarly — Critical  Con- 
siderations not  Sufficient  for  the  Pronounce- 
ment of  a  Judgment  on  Critical  Questions — 
The  Appeal  to  Christ — The  Doctrine  of  Iner- 
rancy— Of  Inspiration — The  True  Starting- 
point  and  Goal  of  all  Fruitful  Criticism,  .    .    .  181 

Part  V. 

IF  THE  CRITICS  ARE  RIGHT,  WHAT? 

1^47.  The  Doctrine  of  Inerrancy, 194 

1^48.  Inspiration, 200 

^  49.  Date  and  Authorship  of  the  Books  of  the  Bible,  .  207 


INTRODUCTION 


"Higher  Criticism"  is  a  phrase  used  to  ex- 
press all  investigations  respecting  the  genuineness, 
authenticity,  and  integrity  of  ancient  literary 
works,  especially  the  various  books  of  the  Bible. 
By  whom  the  phrase  was  first  used  we  can  not 
say.  Dr.  Seiler,  in  the  preface  to  his  "Biblical 
Hermeneutics,"  published  at  Erlangen  in  1800. 
speaks  of  "the  subtilty  of  a  (so-called)  higher 
criticism,  which  cuts  into  the  very  life-blood  of 
Christianity."  And  in  the  body  of  his  work,  in 
speaking  of  "Introductions,"  he  says:  "This 
branch  is  called  by  some  the  higher,  historical,  or 
real  criticism.  The  investigation  of  the  genuine- 
ness and  uncorrupted  state  of  the  readings  is 
special,  or  common,  and  verbal  criticism."  This 
we  would  now  call  "textual  criticism." 

The  higher  criticism  is  not  a  modern  science. 
In  the  third  and  second  centuries  before  Christ, 
there  was  a  flourishing  school  of  criticism  at  Al- 
exandria, which  discussed  very  thoroughly  the 
Homeric  poems.  In  this  school  Zenodotus,  Aris- 
tophanes, and  Aristarchus  were  brilliant  instruct- 
ors. In  the  first  century  before  Christ,  Dionysius 
of  Halicarnassus  was  pre-eminently  distinguished 
for  his  great  critical  ability.     In  the  early  Chris- 


1 2  INTR  OD  UCTION. 

tian  Church,  Clement  and  Dionysius  of  Alexan- 
dria, Origen,  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  Palestinae,  and 
Jerome  were  no  mean  critics. 

But  little  Biblical  criticism  existed  in  the  Mid- 
dle Ages.  The  revival  of  learning  gave  a  new 
impulse  to  literar\^  criticism;  and  Richard  Simon, 
born  in  France  in  1638,  ma}^  be  regarded  as  the 
founder  of  modern  Biblical  criticism;  and  Rich- 
ard Bentley,  of  England,  who  came  upon  the 
literar}'  stage  a  little  later,  formed  an  epoch  in 
the  history  of  general  criticism,  and  has  not  been 
surpassed. 

Of  all  the  people  of  the  Modern  World  the 
Germans  have  most  distinguished  themselves  in 
Biblical  and  classical  literature  and  criticism. 
But  they  are  too  much  given  to  speculation  and 
theory,  and  often  show  a  lack  of  vigorous  common 
sense  and  knowledge  of  real  life.  Their  criticism 
often  rests  upon  too  narrow  a  basis,  and  upon 
minute  and  uncertain  points.  They  rely  too 
much  upon  internal  evidence,  and  depreciate  ex- 
ternal testimony.  They  are  controlled  too  largel}^ 
by  subjective  feelings,  and  excessive  confidence  in 
their  individual  opinions,  and  contempt  for  others. 
Some  of  these  latter  traits  are  found  also  in  some 
of  our  American  skeptical  higher  critics.  We 
make  no  objection  to  higher  criticism  being  ap- 
plied to  the  Bible.  On  the  contrary,  we  believe 
in  it.  But  it  must  embrace  the  discussion  of  ex- 
ternal as  well  as  internal  evidence.  In  manj- 
cases,  the  oiily  proof  of  the  authorship  of  a  book 


INTR  OD  UCTION.  1 3 

is  external  evidence.  The  internal  evidence  may, 
in  fact,  amount  to  nothing  at  all.  On  this  point 
we  need  refer  onl}'  to  the  authorship  of  the  Let- 
ters of  Junius.  How  has  the  question  of  their 
authorship  puzzled  the  learned  and  critical  world ! 

Where  external  and  internal  evidence  unite  in 
proof  of  authorship,  we  have  the  highest  certainty. 
But  one  of  the  most  difficult  of  all  problems  is  to 
determine  whether  a  book  is  the  work  of  one 
author  or  more.  We  may  be  satisfied  that  there 
is  a  unity  of  plan  in  it,  and  of  course  some  ar- 
ranger or  architect  of  the  whole ;  but  how  man 3' 
men  had  a  share  in  the  work,  we  could  never  tell. 
We  may  be  thoroughly  convinced  that  a  house 
was  planned  by  some  architect,  and  that  the  men 
w^ho  built  it  acted  in  concert;  but  how  many 
workmen  there  were  would  not  be  manifest.  We 
might  easil}^  imagine,  in  some  cases,  that  one  man 
designed  and  built  the  wdiole. 

Let  us  apply  these  reflections  to  the  Pentateuch. 
If  Moses  was  not  the  author  of  this  work,  who 
was?  It  certainly  bears  strong  marks  of  unity, 
and  therefore  it  must  have  had  some  arranger  or 
editor  who  gave  the  material  of  which  it  is  formed 
its  present  shape.  Whence  w^ere  the  materials 
derived?  Did  he  use  previously  existing  docu- 
ments? If  so,  how  many?  How  far  did  the 
author  or  editor  make  omissions,  additions,  or  al- 
terations in  his  documents?  Who  can  solve  all 
these  difficult  questions?  If  there  were  four  orig- 
inal'documents,  what  each  contained  is  as  difficult 


14  INTR  OD  UCTION. 

to  determine  as  it  is  to  find  the  value  of  fonr  un- 
known quantities  from  a  single  algebraical  equa- 
tion; in  short,  we  would  say,  impossible. 

Suppose  our  Gospels,  some  time  after  the  apos- 
tolic age,  had  been  molded  into  one,  somewhat 
after  the  manner  of  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  but 
without  a  single  mark  to  indicate  that  it  was  a 
composite,  except  so  far  as  the  work  itself  might 
show  it;  and  that  not  a  hint  had  come  down  to 
us  that  it  had  ever  existed  in  any  other  form  than 
as  a  unit}', — can  we  believe  that  any  set  of  critics 
would  have  been  able  to  show  that  it  was  a  com- 
bination oi  four  documents  or  Gospels,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  assign  to  each  evangelist  wdiat  be- 
longs to  him?  Even  if  the}'  had  been  able  to  some 
extent  to  disentangle  John,  they  could  never  have 
ascertained  that  there  are  three  others,  and  still 
less  have  given  to  each  evangelist  his  due. 

Suppose,  some  day,  there  should  be  applied  to 
American  history  the  skeptical  principles  some- 
times applied  to  the  Bible,  what  havoc  w^ill  be 
made  of  our  history!  Let  us  take  the  following- 
language  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence: 
"We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident — that  all 
men  are  created  equal;  that  they  are  endowed  by 
their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights;  that 
among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness."  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  when 
this  language  was  used  the  African  slave-trade 
was  carried  on,  not  only  by  the  Southern  States, 
but  also  by  Massachusetts  and  other  New  Eng- 


INTR  OD  UCTION.  1 5 

land  States;  and  African  slavery  existed  in  about 
every  State  of  the  Confederacy. 

What  will  the  future  critics  of  Germany  say  of 
this  Declaration  two  thousand  years  hence?  Will 
they  not  declare  it  iinhistoricalf  They  will  say 
that  it  is  perfectly  absurd  that  men  should  appeal 
to  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe  for  the  rec- 
titude of  their  intentions,  declaiing  that  all  men 
are  created  equal  and  entitled  to  liberty,  while  these 
very  rebellious  States  themselves  were  enslavers 
of  human  beings.  The  critics  will  assert  strongh- 
that  the  Declaration  arose — or,  at  least,  was  modi- 
fied— in  the  age  of  freedom ! 

Take  another  instance  of  a  surprising  charac- 
ter. On  Thomas  Jefferson's  monument  stands 
the  following  inscription:  ''Author  of  the  Decla- 
ration of  American  Independence,  of  the  Statute 
of  Virginia  for  Religious  Freedom,  and  Father  of 
the  University  of  Virginia."  Not  a  word  about 
his  having  been  President  of  the  United  States ! 
What  an  omission !  Suppose  this  monument,  one 
or  two  thousand  years  hence,  should  be  dug  up 
among  the  ruins  of  America  and  transported  to 
Germany,  what  a  sensation  it  will  make!  Will 
they  not  straightway  revise  x\merican  history,  and 
affirm  that  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence and  President  Jefferson  were  two  dif- 
ferent persons,  as  established  by  monumental  tes- 
timony? 

The  books  which  compose  the  Bible  have  not 
all  the  same  degree  of  certainty  and  strength,  or 


1 6  INTR  OD  UCTION. 

the  same  inspiration  and  importance.  The}'  are 
not  hke  the  links  in  a  chain,  which  is  no  stronger 
than  its  weakest  link;  but  they  are  like  witnesses 
in  court  in  favor  of  some  great  cause  which  de- 
pends upon  the  strongest,  not  upon  the  weakest 
witness.  The  great  center  of  the  Bible  is  Christ, 
whose  history  is  one  of  the  best  authenticated  in 
the  world.  He  is  our  Great  Citadel,  and  in  pos- 
session of  this  Impregnable  Fortess  we  need  not 
be  alarmed  if  some  of  the  outposts  are  carried  by 
the  enem3^     But  to  proceed  to  the  work  before  us. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rishell's  book  is  clearly  and  tersel}^ 
written.  His  two  3'ears'  residence  in  Berlin  has 
not  vitiated  his  English  style.  He  gives,  in  a 
very  succinct  and  fair  manner,  the  views  of  the 
higher  skeptical  critics,  and  occasionally  those  of 
a  more  evangelical  type.  Of  course,  in  a  treatise 
of  this  kind,  the  strong  objections  to  radical  views, 
and  the  answers  that  may  be  given  them,  do  not 
come  into  view. 

In  Parts  IV  and  V  he  discusses,  under  the 
heads  of  "Estimate  of  Results,"  and  "If  the 
Critics  are  Right,  What?"  the  questions  of 
Inspiratio7i  and  the  Inerrmicy  of  the  Bible  with 
much  good  sense  and  moderation.  This  part  of 
the  work  is  especialh'  worth}-  of  being  carefully 
read. 

HENRY  M.  HARMAN. 


THE  BIBLE  AND  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 


Part  I. 

INTRODUCTORY  DISCUSSION. 

§1.  Thk  Aims  of  the  Higher  Critics. 

Many  are  asking,  What  are  the  aims  of  the 
higher  critics?  What  do  they  hope  to  accom- 
plish? By  what  motives  are  they  prompted? 
To  answer  these  questions  is  the  object  of  this 
section.  But  it  must  first  be  premised  that 
the  critics  are  not  all  led  on  by  the  same  pur- 
pose. Some  are  more,  others  less  religiously 
earnest.  Some,  indeed,  have  only  an  historical 
or  a  literary  interest  in  their  work.  All  claim 
to  be  free  from  any  conscious  bias  which  could 
influence  their  conclusions. 

First  in  order  we  mention  the  literary  aims 
of  the  critics.  These  confine  themselves  chiefly 
to  what  is  ordinarily  called  "Introduction,"  al- 
though they  do  not  exhaust  that  field.     They 

2  17 


1 8  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

strive  to  ascertain  everything  which  can  be 
known  concerning  the  books  of  the  Bible.  They 
ask,  By  whom,  for  whom,  when,  where,  under 
what  circumstances,  and  for  what  purpose,  was 
each  book  of  the  Bible  composed  ?  They  inter- 
rogate tradition,  sit  in  judgment  on  the  opin- 
ions of  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  fathers  as  to 
these  matters,  and  demand  of  the  books  them- 
selves an  account  of  their  origin.  To  them 
the  Bible  is  a  phenomenon,  or  a  composite 
of  phenomena,  the  existence  of  which  is  to  be 
explained.  They  ask.  Who  wrote  the  Bible? 
just  as  they  would  ask,  Who  wrote  the  plays 
usually  attributed  to  Shakespeare?  They  are 
not  content  with  a  superficial  examination  of 
the  problems  before  them,  but  strive,  each  ac- 
cording to  his  ability,  to  study  them  broadly, 
profoundly,  and  exactly.  To  some  portions  of 
their  work  they  do  not  attach  any  great  re- 
ligious significance;  yet  in  some  cases  they 
have  discovered,  by  their  minute  research, 
facts  of  great  value  in  the  proper  interpreta- 
tion and  application  of  the  Word. 

This  seems   in  many  respects  a  perfectly 
harmless  object;    but,  as  we  shall  see,  some 


THE  AIMS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  *       1 9 

of  the  most  vital  issues  connected  with  the 
entire  work  of  Biblical  criticism  depend  upon 
their  conclusions. 

Another  class  of  critics  have  historical 
rather  than  literary  aims  in  view.  Of  this 
number  are  the  oft-mentioned  Wellhausen  and 
Kuenen.  Their  literary  criticism  is  not  for 
its  own  sake,  but  in  order  to  elicit  the  histor- 
ical facts.  To  them  the  Bible  is  just  like  any 
other  source  of  historical  information.  They 
can  not  accept  its  statements  simply  because 
they  are  found  in  the  Book.  If  other  sources 
contradict,  they  w^eigh,  sift,  and  decide,  as 
though  the  Bible  had  been  written  without 
any  Divine  help.  There  is  no  presumption 
in  its  favor  drawn  from  religious  considera- 
tions, nor  is  there  any  prejudice  against  it. 
If  its  utterances  are  adjudged  contradictory, 
no  effort  is  made  to  harmonize  them ;  and  one 
or  all  on  the  subject  in  question  must  be  re- 
jected. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  historian, 
nothing  could  be  more  fair ;  and  these  critics 
are  conscious  of  no  wrong.  Their  honesty  is, 
to  themselves,  perfectly  clear.     They  naturally 


20  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

can  not  understand  what  objection  can  be 
made  to  such  a  treatment  of  the  Scriptures. 
They  are  very  much  inclined  to  think  that 
one  who  does  not  look  at  the  Bible  as  they 
look  at  it,  acts  in  the  interests  of  his  faith  or 
his  prejudices,  and  is  indifferent  to  the  truth, 
which,  however  it  may  contravene  all  that  has 
heretofore  been  believed,  must  be  accepted 
with  unquestioning  obedience. 

A  third  class  approach  the  Bible  and  its 
study  with  religious  motives.  They  see  in  it  a 
book  of  religion,  not  of  history.  They  can  not 
divest  themselves  of  the  impression  that  it 
holds  a  peculiar  position  in  literature.  They 
may  apply  all  the  canons  of  literary  and  his- 
torical criticism  just  as  the  first  two  of  the 
above-mentioned  classes;  but  they  do  not  feel 
that,  in  so  doing,  they  have  exhausted  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  Bible.  There  are  elements  in 
it  which  can  not  be  tested  except  by  the  heart. 
Some  of  this  class  incline  decidedly  toward 
the  conclusions  of  the  purely  literary  and  his- 
torical critics  ;  others  regard  them  as  erroneous 
because  reached  by  inadequate  methods. 

Taking   the  Bible  as  a   book   of  religion, 


THE  AIMS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  21 

these  critics  ask  themselves  the  questions, 
How  came  the  Bible  here  ?  Is  it  a  mere  rec- 
ord of  human  experiences  and  beliefs  ?  Were 
these  experiences  had  under  the  direct  provi- 
dence of  God  ?  Were  these  beliefs  wrought  in 
the  minds  of  men  by  the  Holy  Spirit?  Were 
men  inspired  to  write  the  things  contained  in 
the  Bible?  It  is  plain  that  the  object  of  all 
such  critics  is  to  sound  the  depths  of  the 
Bible's  religious  value.  Its  literary  and  his- 
torical worth  sink  into  insignificance,  and  is 
prized  only  as  accessory  to  the  embodiment  of 
the  truth  of  God.  Hence  there  are  those  who 
assert  perfect  and  equal  inspiration  in  all  parts 
of  the  Bible,  since  they  can  not  imagine  the 
truth  of  God  in  a  setting  of  error  ;  while  others 
affirm  that  the  test  of  the  truth  is  in  those 
parts  which  have  to  do  with  our  religious 
life,  and  declare  that  if  we  admit  the  supposed 
existence  of  myth  and  fable,  these  still  contain 
the  precious  kernel  of  religious  truth. 

The  chief  source  of  disturbance  to  faith 
has  arisen  from  the  attempts  at  reconstruction 
of  Bible  history.  This  is  not  the  place  to 
speak  at  length  of  these  attempts  ;  but  many 


2  2  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

are   convinced    on    historical   grounds    of   the 
truth  of  the  conclusions  of  historical  investi- 
gation  as    applied    to    the    Bible  who,  at   the 
same   time,  feel   that   these  conclusions   must 
be  maintained  in  the  interest  of  faith.     They 
point   out   the    fact   that  many  educated  men 
discover,  or  think  they  discover,  a  conflict  be- 
tween certain  statements  of  the  Bible  and  the 
results  of   investigation   relative  to  the  same 
subjects    in    other    fields.     To  such    men   the 
solitary   testimony  of    the    Bible   is  not  suffi- 
cient to  outweigh  all   other  opposing   consid- 
erations.    It  is  only  the   thoroughly  religious 
man  who  will  continue  his  faith  in  the  Bible 
after   he   finds    its  utterances  contradicted  by 
all   other   authorities.     But  as  these  are  mat- 
ters  which  do   not    pertain    to    the    faith,  the 
third  class  of  critics    may   admit   all    that  the 
first  and   second   classes    claim,   and    thereby 
win  them  to  faith  in  the  religious  elements  of 
the  Book.      If  they  insist  that  all  is   inspired 
or  none,   then   the   scientific   man   rejects  all. 
If    they   limit    inspiration    and    inerrancy    to 
those  parts  which  center  about  the  religious 
life,  they  conciliate,  and  perhaps  even  win,  the 


METHODS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  23 

opposer  to  Christ.  Hence,  some  who  would 
take  but  little  interest  in  these  critical  ques- 
tions for  their  own  sake,  are  profoundly  inter- 
ested for  the  sake  of  the  good  they  may  do. 

The  principal  aims  and  motives  of  the 
higher  critics  have  now  been  set  forth  in 
brief,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  some  are  actu- 
ated by  purely  secular,  others  by  purely  relig- 
ious motives;  still  others  by  a  mixture  of  the 
two,  with  a  preponderance  of  one  or  the  other. 
Few  aim  solely  at  literary  or  historical  ends 
without  any  mixture  of  the  religious;  yet 
with  many  the  latter  plays  so  feeble  a  part  as 
to  vitiate  all  conclusions  which  conflict  with 
faith.  The  further  discussion  will  lend  in- 
creasing light,  and  still  further  reveal  the  aims, 
as  the  present  remarks  will  aid  in  understand- 
ing what  is  to  be  said  as  to  methods,  principles, 
and  presumptive  results. 

§2.  The  Methods  of  the  Higher  Critics. 

Of  necessity,  the  methods  employed  corre- 
spond in  form  to  the  design  of  the  investi- 
gation. 

The  linguistic  method  is  well  known,  and 


24  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

will  scarcely  need  illustration.  It  must  be 
confessed  that  of  the  correctness  of  many  of 
the  conclusions  based  upon  its  revealments, 
only  those  can  judge  who  are  themselves  ex- 
perts in  the  sacred  languages.  Doubtless  the 
differences  in  linguistic  style  between  two 
books  attributed  to  the  same  author,  might 
suggest  the  necessity  of  denying  the  compo- 
sition of  one  or  the  other  to  him.  Where  dif- 
ferences of  style  are  very  wide,  the  probability 
of  different  authorship  might  become  so  great 
as  to  overcome  a  constant  and  unbroken  tra- 
dition. It  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  the 
same  writer  varies  his  style  according  to  his 
subject;  or,  that  it  undergoes  a  change  with 
advancing  age  and  culture,  or  in  accordance 
with  his  subjective  condition  at  the  time  of 
writing.  This  is  all  true  in  the  abstract;  but 
in  each  particular  case  the  critic  must  settle 
whether  the  actual  differences  are  to  be  so  ac- 
counted for.  As  they  do  not  appear  in  our 
English  translation,  only  the  critical  student 
can  decide  how  much  dependence  may  be 
placed  upon  them. 

More  uncertain  still  is  that  form  of  the  lin- 


METHODS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  25 

guistic  method  which  attempts  to  determine 
the  literary  dependency  or  independency  of 
one  book  or  author  upon  another.  Here  it  is 
agreed  that  the  authors  are  distinct;  but  cer- 
tain portions  of  their  works  are  so  much  alike 
in  thought  and  language  that  it  is  easy  to 
suppose  one  must  have  quoted  from  the  other. 
The  question  then  arises,  Which  is  the  bor- 
rower? Upon  the  answer  may  depend  the 
conclusion  as  to  the  authorship  of  one  or  the 
other  of  the  so  related  books;  but  it  is  evi- 
dent that  any  opinion  based  upon  such  an  in- 
vestigation must  be  most  precarious.  The 
danger  that  the  judgment  of  the  investigator 
will  be  warped  by  other  considerations  is 
great,  and  jeopards,  in  consequence,  all  his 
conclusions.  On  the  whole,  linguistic  consid- 
erations are  to  be  pronounced  insufficient. 
And  this  is  indeed  tacitly  acknowledged  by 
the  critics,  who  seek  to  support  arguments 
drawn  from  this  source  by  others  less  open  to 
suspicion.  Illustrations  of  the  use  and  abuse 
of  this  method  will  be  found  under  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  results  attained  by  the  higher 
critics. 


26  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

For  historical  purposes  the  principal  de- 
pendence is  upon  a  comparison  of  Biblical 
records  with  those  of  other  nations.  The 
close  contact  into  which  Israel  was  brought 
by  its  geographical  situation  with  the  princi- 
pal nations  of  antiquity,  facilitates  such  an 
investigation.  It  must  be  said  that  the  re- 
sults, thus  far,  have  been  strikingly  confirm- 
atory of  the  Biblical  record  in  general.  As 
the  monuments  of  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Assyria, 
and  Persia  give  up  their  secrets,  the  student 
will  have  still  more  ample  material  for  com- 
parison. This,  of  course,  pertains  chiefly  to 
the  political  history  of  the  Jews;  but  for  its 
religious  history  a  similar  form  of  historical 
investigation  is  employed.  A  study  of  the 
religious  books  of  other  ancient  nations  shows 
that,  in  many  of  their  traditions,  they  are  re- 
markably like  those  of  the  Jews.  For  exam- 
ple, all  ancient  religions  of  Asia,  Africa,  and 
America  have  a  story  of  the  Deluge  essen- 
tially like  that  recorded  in  Genesis.  This 
fact,  while  it  helps  to  confirm  the  truth  of  the 
Biblical  record,  suggests  that  it  is  not  a  mat- 
ter of  revelation.     Thus   the   historian   takes 


METHODS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.         27 

the  Bible  as  one  of  the  sources  of  history, 
whether  political  or  religious.  By  this  method 
some  things  in  the  Bible  are  rendered  more 
probable  than  they  would  otherwise  be ;  while 
others,  which  find  no  corroboration,  are  rather 
made  doubtful. 

But  the  historical  method  goes  further.  It 
is  not  content  to  take  the  several  accounts  of 
the  same  transaction  and  harmonize  them. 
It  does  not  take  for  granted  that  each  account 
is  true,  and  that  only  our  ignorance  prevents 
us  from  discovering  the  connecting  link.  Each 
account  is  made  to  stand  on  its  own  merits. 
If  it  contains  statements  which  seem  improb- 
able as  compared  with  other  Biblical  accounts, 
or  with  other  portions  of  the  same  account, 
it  is  ruled  out.  In  fact,  the  historian  dares 
not  do  otherwise.  Outside  the  Bible  he  em- 
ploys this  method  most  rigidly.  Should  he 
assume  that  the  Bible,  because  it  is  his  relig- 
ious book,  is  more  perfect  than  other  books, 
he  would  at  once  make  himself  in  so  far  a 
theologian.  On  historical  grounds  he  may 
or  may  not  be  convinced  of  the  accuracy 
of   the    Scripture    record;    but  as  a  historian 


28  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

he  dares  not  admit  any  intermixture  of  the- 
ological principle  which  would  detract  from 
the  strictness  of  his  method.  In  short,  the 
historical  method  can  only  see  in  the  Bible 
a  "  source "  of  history,  not  history  itself. 
It  places  it  upon  a  par  with  other  sources, 
and  only  comes  to  regard  it  as  having  the 
quality  of  superior  trustworthiness  after  it  has 
been  tested.  It  feels  at  perfect  liberty  to  re- 
ject its  historical  statements  entirely,  or  to 
correct  theui  according  to  other  sources  of 
information.  That  such  a  free  handling  of 
the  Book  has  a  tendency  to  destroy  reverence 
for  it  there  can  be  no  doubt;  but  the  critic 
affirms  that  so  far  as  reverence  can  be  de- 
stroyed by  criticism  it  is  unworthy  of  rever- 
ence. And  he  declares  that,  so  far  from  de- 
stroying the  historical  trustworthiness  of  the 
Bible  in  its  general  statements,  his  work  tends 
directly  to  confirmation. 

Another  method  of  criticism,  less  popularly 
known  than  the  two  just  mentioned,  is  that 
of  Biblical  theology.  As  a  method  it  is  pri- 
marily analytical,  but  it  ends  with  synthesis. 
It  takes  up  the   separate  books  of  the   Bible, 


METHODS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  29 

and  studies  their  theology.  It  seeks  to  find 
the  fundamental  principles  of  each  author, 
and  sometimes  denies  a  book  its  traditional 
authorship  because  it  diverges  from  the  theo- 
logical position  of  other  books  from  the  sup- 
posed author's  pen.  Having  analyzed  the 
theological  contents  of  the  separate  books 
and  authors,  it  proceeds  to  formulate  them 
into  a  more  or  less  complete  system.  It  dis- 
covers that  there  is  a  development  of  religious 
ideas  from  Genesis  to  Revelation.  It  may 
place  the  date  of  the  composition  of  a  book 
earlier  or  later  than  it  would  otherwise  be 
supposed  to  be,  because  its  theological  stand- 
point is  found  to  be  that  of  the  age  to  which 
it  is  assio:ned.  Sometimes  Biblical  theolo- 
gians  think  they  find  irreconcilable  differences 
between  the  theological  positions  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible,  and  are  inclined  to  reject  from 
the  canon  such  as  can  not  be  harmonized. 
Others  find  all  the  teachings  of  the  several 
books  necessary  to  a  complete  system,  and 
base  the  perfection  of  the  canon  upon  the 
fact  that  it  contains  just  what  it  does,  with- 
out diminution  or  increase.     This  method,  as 


30  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

well  as  the  others,  may  be  made  to  do  service 
in  judging  of  the  minutest  details  of  the 
Bible.  Anything  which  conflicts  with  the  in- 
ternal harmony  of  Scripture  teachings  must 
give  way  before  it. 

We  have  mentioned  the  aims  and  methods 
in  their  separate  forms  for  the  sake  of  clear- 
ness ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  seldom 
found  alone.  There  may  be  a  ruling  motive, 
or  method;  but  others  usually  accompany,  to 
modify  or  to  support  the  result.  It  is  the 
strength  of  the  cause  of  the  higher  critics  that 
the  application  of  the  various  methods  usually 
leads  to  the  same  conclusions.  The  literary 
style,  the  historical  setting,  and  the  theological 
position  of  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah  are  all  de- 
clared to  be  different  from  those  of  the  former 
part.  Nor  are  many  of  the  critics  rigidly  either 
literary  or  historical ;  the  majority  are  theolo- 
gians who  combine  with  their  religious  inter- 
ests the  literary  and  historical  methods. 


principles  and  assumptions.  3 1 

§  3.  Higher  Critical  Principles  and  As- 
sumptions. 

Some  of  these  have  been  intimated  in  the 
preceding  remarks ;  yet  it  may  be  well  to  for- 
mulate them  here  in  order  to  correlate  them 
with  those  not  already  mentioned. 

First,  the  assumption  that  the  Bible  is  to  be 
judged  by  purely  literary  standards,  as  any 
other  literature.  Within  limits,  this  can  not 
be  disputed  ;  but  when  it  is  made  to  embrace 
a  denial  of  the  element  of  divine  inspiration, 
the  theologian  at  least  has  a  right  to  object. 
A  book  whose  author  or  co-author  is  God 
must  be  treated  with  a  reverence  not  due  to  a 
purely  human  production  ;  besides,  the  very 
assumption  is  dangerous  to  the  influence  of 
the  Bible.  Here,  therefore,  is  one  of  the 
principal  causes  leading  to  fear  of  the  higher 
critics.  One  of  their  first  assumptions,  if  un- 
challenged, would  undermine  its  authority. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  assumption 
that  the  historian  is  at  liberty  to  treat  the 
Bible  as  any  other  source  of  history.  This 
assumption,  however,  is  objectionable  from  an 


32  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

additional  point  of  view.  To  refer  again  to 
the  Isaian  question,  the  strict  historical  view- 
forbids  that  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah  should 
have  been  written  at  the  same  period  as  the 
former  part,  since  its  historical  setting  is  in 
the  exilian  period.  But  admit  the  fact  of  true 
predictive  prophecy,  and  there  is  no  insuper- 
able difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  earlier 
Isaiah  and  the  later  are  identical;  but  of  course 
we  do  not  mean  by  this  that  such  an  admis- 
sion would  prove  the  identity  of  the  two. 

A  second  assumption  is  that  the  books  of 
the  Bible  are  separate  productions,  each  of 
which  must  be  studied  by  itself,  and  that  we 
may  not  in  every  case  explain  the  meaning  of 
a  passage  in  one  book  by  an  utterance  on  the 
same  subject  in  another  book.  This  principle 
is  only  modified  when  two  or  more  books  are 
supposed  to  have  been  written  by  one  author, 
or  when  there  is  a  supposed  literary  depend- 
ence between  two  books  by  different  authors. 
It  is  this  assumption  which  produces  such 
havoc  with  the  traditional  view  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. Three  or  four  authors  are  supposed  to 
be  traceable  in  the  so-called  books  of  Moses. 


PRINCIPLES  AND  ASSUMPTIONS.  33 

They  wrote  independently  of  each  other,  and 
their  accounts  of  the  same  events  have  been 
loosely  strung  together  under  the  name  of 
Moses.  On  this  supposition,  it  is  easy  to  see 
irreconcilable  difficulties  between  the  distinct 
narratives.  If  one  author  were  supposed  to 
have  written  all,  we  could  easily  imagine  that 
facts  known  to  him,  but  not  committed  to 
writing,  would  explain  the  variations.  Or 
the  adherents  of  the  traditional  view  can  take 
refuge  in  the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  God  is 
the  author  of  all  Scripture,  and  to  each  writer 
he  simply  gave  one  phase  of  the  truth,  to  be 
brought  out  in  its  strongest  possible  light. 
Thus  apparent  contradictions  are  accounted 
for.  We  have  stated  here  only  the  practical 
effect  of  the  two  views  ;  the  truth  or  false- 
hood of  the  one  or  of  the  other  we  do  not  at- 
tempt to  discuss,  since  it  does  not  fall  within 
the  scope  of  our  undertaking. 

Another  point  concerning  which  critics 
differ  in  principle  is  that  of  the  relation  of 
the  natural  and  supernatural.  There  are  few 
who  would  deny  the  Divine  influence  upon  the 
soul;    but   there   are    many  who  dispute    the 


34  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

reality  of  the  miraculous  element  in  the  Bible. 
All  those  accounts  of  special  Divine  appear- 
ances to  men,  and  of  Divine  interposition  in 
their  behalf  through  physical  agencies,  are,  at 
most,  instructive  myths.  Their  only  reality  is 
in  the  doctrine  they  contain  that  God  is  some- 
how interested  in  mankind.  The  practical  ef- 
fect of  all  this  is  to  remove  from  the  Bible  the 
power  to  make  the  immediate  impression  that 
God  is  near — an  impression  which,  true  or 
false,  the  stories  of  the  miracles  chiefly  pro- 
duce as  we  read  the  Scriptures.  If  the  mira- 
cles are  unreal,  we  can  learn  from  the  Bible  of 
God's  nearness  only  by  inference.  But  an- 
other exceedingly  important  consequence  is, 
that  under  this  supposition  the  Bible  loses  its 
character  of  reality  in  general.  The  miracles 
are  related  as  truth  ;  if  they  are  not  true,  then 
much  of  the  Bible  is  given  up  to  a  relation  of 
fictitious  matter,  without  any  warning  to  that 
effect. 

Different  entirely  is  the  view  of  those  who 
admit  the  reality  of  miracles,  but  who  reserve 
the  right  to  judge  concerning  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  record  in  each  case.     The  former 


PRINCIPLES  AND  ASSUMPTIONS.  35 

say  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  physical  mir- 
acle ;  the  latter  say  we  must  not  believe 
every  miraculous  story.  The  former  are 
obliged  by  their  principle  to  deny  the  mirac- 
ulous conception  of  Christ,  and  his  real  resur- 
rection and  ascension.  The  latter  may  admit 
both ;  but  of  the  latter  many  do  practically 
obliterate  all  trace  of  the  miraculous  by  their 
criticism.  This  miracle  is  inherently  improba- 
ble; that  not  necessary,  since  the  event  can  be 
accounted  for  on  natural  principles;  the  oth- 
ers insufficiently  supported  by  testimony. 
Under  this  head  fall  all  such  questions  as 
the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  personality  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  value  of  prayer,  and  the  pos- 
sibility of  regeneration.  Those  who  deny  the 
miraculous  must  deny  all  these  in  any  form 
which  maintains  the  substance  of  them. 
Those  who  admit  will  emphasize  them  more 
or  less  according  to  their  belief  in  the  fre- 
quency of  Divine  interposition  in  the  affairs  of 
men.  The  same  is  true  of  the  doctrine  of  in- 
spiration. All  must  admit  the  possibility  of 
it  who  admit  the  intimate  influence  of  the 
supernatural  among  men.     But  the  degree  and 


36  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

quantity  of  it  in  the  Bible  is  a  question  to  be 
settled  by  the  critical  judgment. 

Still  another  principle  which  must  be  men- 
tioned is  the  doctrine  of  evolution  as  applied 
to  the  Bible  and  its  contents.  The  evolution- 
ist may  be  a  Theist,  although  he  need  not 
even  be  a  Deist.  But  even  theistic  evolution 
in  Scriptural  matters  is  a  far-reaching  princi- 
ple. Evolution  might  account  for  the  pro- 
duction of  every  book  of  the  Bible,  and  for 
the  formation  of  the  canon,  without  any  Divine 
interference.  In  that  case  it  would  be  at  most 
deistic.  More  generally,  however,  the  Bible  is 
regarded  by  evolutionary  critics  as  the  record 
of  experiences  wrought  in  the  hearts  and  lives 
of  men  and  nations  by  the  purpose  of  God. 
Under  this  view,  God's  providence  determined 
each  step  in  the  progress  of  revelation.  The 
revelation  was  not  to  the  intellect,  but  in 
hearts  and  lives.  Men  wa'ote  what  they  felt 
God  had  done.  God  did  what  was  needed  ac- 
cording to  the  then  development  of  mankind, 
or  of  the  chosen  people.  As  man  advanced, 
the  revelation  was  made  clearer;  that  is, 
God's  dealings  corresponded   more  closely  to 


PRINCIPLES  AND  ASSUMPTIONS.  37 

his  own  ideal,  and  less  \\\\h  the  imperfect 
condition  of  man.  Such  a  view  may  or  may 
not  admit  the  reality  of  a  revelation  to  all 
peoples  as  truly  as  to  the  Jews.  Any  imper- 
fection of  a  heathen  religion  would  be  ac- 
counted for  just  as  any  imperfection  in  the 
Jewish  faith,  by  the  supposition  that  God  was 
doing  the  best  for  men  under  the  circum- 
stances. So  far  as  Judaism  is  concerned,  it 
need  not  follow  that  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  present  as  a  whole  a  true  picture 
of  the  actual  development.  The  evolutionist 
supposes  that  the  development  of  religious 
knowledge  and  practice  kept  pace  with  each 
other.  Our  Old  Testament  leaves  the  im- 
pression that,  far  in  advance  and  almost  once 
for  all,  God  laid  down  a  standard  of  faith  and 
practice,  behind  which  the  actual  practice  of 
the  people  lagged  for  centuries.  To  the  evo- 
lutionist this  seems  highly  improbable.  Hence 
he  attempts  to  reconstruct  the  history  accord- 
ing to  his  views;  and  he  claims  that  he  finds 
numberless  hints  throughout  the  Scripture  in 
support  of  his  theory.  On  the  same  principle 
the  development  of  Christianity  is  accounted 


38  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

for.  The  centuries  preceding  the  birth  of 
Christ  were  preparing  the  way  for  Christianity 
in  Judaism.  Christ's  very  Messianic  conscious- 
ness would  have  been  impossible  without  the 
preceding  development  of  Messianic  hope  to 
which  Christ's  view  of  himself  and  his  mission 
closely  conformed.  Thus  our  Lord  was  not  so 
much  a  fulfillment  of  the  expectations  of  the 
Jews  as  portrayed  in  the  Bible  as  of  those  who 
lived  subsequently.^  With  the  scientific  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  such  an  opinion  we  have 
here  nothing  to  do,  nor  can  we  spend  time  on  the 
practical  effects.  These  depend  almost  wholly 
upon  the  thoroughness  with  which  the  theistic 
idea  pervades  the  critic.  While  in  fact  there 
often  is,  there  need  be  in  it  nothing  antagonis- 
tic to  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  faith.  ^ 
It  remains  merely  to  state  the  attitude  of 
the  critics  toward  Christianity.  That  some 
are  antagonistic  goes  without  the  saying. 
Most,  however,  hold   with    greater   or  less  te- 


^  See  Thomson,  Books  which  Influenced  our  Lord, 
2  Abbott's  "  Bvohition  of  Christianity  "  is  a  good  illus- 
tration of  the  evolutionary  theory  as  applied  to  religion. 
Others  which  might  be  mentioned  are  far  more  radical. 


PRINCIPLES  AND  ASSUMPTIONS.  39 

nacity  to  our  holy  religion.  It  may  even  be 
said  that  most  believe  it  to  be  the  only  true 
religion.  Yet  some  there  are  who  regard  it 
as  only  the  best  of  all,  and  do  not  hesitate  to 
say  that  it  will  undergo  transformation  to  fit 
it  fully  for  its  universal  mission.^  Of  those 
who  adhere  to  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible, 
some  justify  their  critical  researches  by  the 
results  to  be  attained;  others  declare  that 
criticism  is  a  science,  the  same  as  any  other, 
and  may  be  practiced  upon  the  Bible  just  as 
upon  any  other  book.  The  results  of  their 
investigations  have  nothing  in  common  with 
their  faith,  which  is  entirely  unaffected  by 
critical  inquiry.^  With  such,  criticism  must 
be  a  mere  pastime — a  pleasurable  employment 
of  the  mind.  But,  perhaps,  the  majority  are 
filled  with  the  idea  that  all  truth  is  in  har- 
mony; and  that  therefore,  in  the  end,  no  real 
truth  of  Christianity  can  be  affected  by  criti- 
cism, while  it  may  be  very  useful  to  sweep 
away  any  falsehood  and  superstition  to  which 


^E.  g.^  Toy,  Judaism  aud  Christiauity. 
"^  E.  g.,  Kibach,  "  Ueber  die  wisseiiscliaftliche  Behand- 
lung  und  praktische  Beimtzuug  der  heiligeu  Schrift." 


40  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

men  cling.  There  is  great  danger,  however, 
that  our  very  devotion  to  truth  will  induce  us 
to  employ  inadequate  means  for  its  universal 
discovery  and  valuation.  If  by  truth  we  mean 
truth  which  can  be  tested  by  the  judgment 
alone,  we  practically  abandon  Christian  ground. 
Christianity,  as  a  practical  concern,  can  be 
tested  only  by  its  proper  agencies.  These  in- 
clude the  experiences  of  the  heart.  If  relig- 
ion has  its  rights  they  should  be  respected. 
The  truths  which  can  be  subordinated  to  rea- 
son do  not  of  necessity  exhaust  the  sum  of 
truth,  since  the  reason  is  not  the  only  human 
faculty  capable  of  testing  phenomena;  nor  is 
reason  any  more  reliable  in  its  judgments 
than  the  heart.  That  in  which  the  human 
heart  can  quietly  and  permanently  rest  may 
be  regarded  as  true,  just  as  that  may  be  re- 
garded true  in  which  the  reason  can  rest. 
The  Christian  must  search  for  truth;  but  he 
may  not  reject  one  class  of  truths  in  the  in- 
terest of  another,  and  especially  if  by  so  doing 
he  overturns  the  truths  of  religion.  The 
whole  danger  arises  from  the  attempt  to  act 
the  part  of  the  scientific  investigator  without 


PRINCIPLES  AND  ASSUMPTIONS.  41 

recollection  of  what  one  has  discovered  by 
experience.  But  these  imperfections  of  method 
and  purpose  are  only  incidental  and  tempo- 
rary. They  will  be  corrected  as  time  goes  on. 
Christian  truth  will  not  permanently  nor  widely 
suffer,  although  many  individuals  may  be  de- 
prived of  its  comforts  for  the  time. 


Part  II. 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Although  criticism  is  a  comparatively 
youthful  science,  it  has  already  reached  many 
conclusions  upon  which  the  majority  of  in- 
vestigators agree.  This  does  not  necessarily 
imply  that  such  conclusions  are  correct;  for 
in  the  republic  of  truth  majorities  dare  not 
rule.  And  the  critics  themselves,  who  agree 
with  each  other  so  completely,  would  not 
deny  that  many  points  are  only  probably  es- 
tablished. The  results  attained  are  merely 
held  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  best  infor- 
mation within  our  reach.  Further  discovery 
may  make  a  change  of  position  necessary. 
Hence  we  speak  of  the  presumptive  results 
of  higher  criticism.     We  enter  first  upon 

§4.  The  General  History  of  Old  Testa- 
ment Criticism. 

The    way   was    prepared    for    the    critical 

study  of  the  Old  Testament  by  two   French 

42 


OLD   TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  43 

scholars — one  a  Protestant,  Ludwig  Cappellus ' 
(ti658);  the  other  a  Romanist,  Johann  Mori- 
nus^  (ti659),  who  disputed  the  belief  in  the 
continuous  and  perfect  preservation  of  the 
Masoretic  text,  and  the  high  age  of  the  He- 
brew punctuation,  doctrines  generally  ac- 
cepted and  founded  upon  Rabbinical  tradition. 
But  the  first  epoch-making  works  on  higher 
critical  lines  were  those  of  Benedict  de  Spi- 
noza^ (ti677)  and  Richard  Simon ^  (tiyia). 

Spinoza's  philosophical  standpoint  was 
Pantheism,  and  his  conclusions  concerning 
Revelation,  Miracle,  and  Prophecy  were  seri- 
ously affected  thereby.  According  to  him  the 
task  of  criticism  is  to  investigate  the  origin 
of  individual  books,  and  the  history  of  the 
Scripture  text  and  canon.  Abraham  ibn  Ezra 
had  designated  certain  portions  of  the  law  as 
mysterious.  To  these  Spinoza  added  others, 
and  denied  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch.      By  a  comparison   of    Numbers 


'  See  Schnedermanii,  Die  Controverse  des   L.  Cappel- 
lus mit  den  Buxtorfen. 

^  Exercitatiouuni  Bii)licaruni,  etc. 

^  In  his  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus. 

*  Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament. 


44  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

xxi,  14,  with  Exodus  xvii,  14,  and  in  Exodus 
xxiv,  4,  7,  and  Deuteronomy  i,  5;  xxxi,  9,  he 
found  intimations  of  the  real  literary  activity 
of  Moses.  He  saw  much  in  Joshua,  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings  to  indicate  a  late  compo- 
sition for  these  books.  The  books  from  Gen- 
esis to  Second  Kings,  inclusive,  form  one  great 
historical  work  by  a  single  author,  whose  pur- 
pose throughout  was  to  teach  the  words  and 
ordinances  of  Moses.  This  author  was  prob- 
ably Ezra;  and  his  work  consisted  in  the  col- 
lection of  material  from  different  authors,  as 
is  still  observable.  But  many  of  the  diver- 
gences which  would  naturally  thus  arise,  Ezra 
could  not  reconcile.  Chronicles  he  supposed 
to  be  a  very  late  work,  written  probably  after 
the  restoration  of  the  temple  under  Judas 
Maccabceus.  The  prophetic  books  were  com- 
posed of  fragments  collected  from  various 
sources,  and  in  arrangement  have  suffered 
many  displacements  of  their  natural  order. 
Previous  to  the  Maccabsean  period  there  was 
no  canon  of  Holy  Scripture.  Many  of  the 
conclusions  of  this  pioneer  among  higher 
critics  find  recognition  even  yet. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  45 

The  title  of  Simon's  work  was  Histoire 
Critique  dtt  Vicux  Testament  (Critical  History 
of  the  Old  Testament).  Into  this  work  he 
gathered  all  the  results  of  the  labors  of  his 
predecessors,  Cappellus,  Morinus,  Spinoza,  and 
others,  many  of  which  he  more  firmly  estab- 
lished by  his  own  researches.  His  scientific 
and  brilliant  presentation  of  the  subject  lent 
it  uncommon  interest.  Attention  w^as  still 
further  called  to  it  by  its  confiscation  in 
France,  and  by  the  author's  keen  and  prompt 
replies  to  his  literary  opponents.  He  spent 
little  time  upon  the  origin  of  the  individual 
books,  although  he  gave  some  space  to  the 
proof  that  in  its  present  form  the  Pentateuch 
could  not  have  been  composed  by  Moses. 
He  developed  the  theory  that  in  all  Oriental 
States  there  were  official  historiographers. 
The  only  difference  between  the  Hebrew  his- 
toriographers, who  had  probably  existed  since 
Moses,  and  those  of  other  nations,  was  that 
the  former  were  inspired,  while  the  latter 
were  not.  It  was  the  duty  of  these  men  to 
write  out  the  important  events  of  their  own 
period,  and    to    alter,  abbreviate,  and    enlarge 


46  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Upon  the  work  of  their  predecessors,  as  seemed 
to  them  necessary  for  the  circumstances  of 
the  time.  Ezra,  or  probably  still  later  writers, 
collected  all  that  had  been  previously  written, 
and  out  of  the  material  at  their  command 
wrote  our  Old  Testament;  but  in  so  doing 
they  allowed  themselves  much  freedom  in  the 
handling  of  their  sources. 

With  these  two  writers  the  work  of  higher 
criticism  was  fairly  initiated.  During  the  early 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Joh.  Gottlob 
Carpzov'  (ti757)  distinguished  himself  by 
the  learning  and  comprehensiveness  of  his 
work  in  this  department,  and  especially  by  his 
spirited  antagonism  to  Spinoza  and  Simon. 
Special  mention  must  also  be  made  of  the 
work  of  Joh.  Gottfried  Eichhorn  (t  1827),  ^^^^ 
was  greatly  influenced  by  Spinoza  and  Simon 
on  the  one  hand,  and  by  Semler  and  Herder 
on  the  other;  also  of  Ewald's  "History  of 
Israel,"  "Prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant," 
and  "Poets  of  the  Old  Covenant;"  of  the 
w^orks  of  Havernick  (t  1845)  and  Keil  (t  1888), 
both  of  which   followed  the  traditional  Hues  ; 

^  Iiitrodiictio,  etc.,  and  Critica  Sacra. 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM.  47 

and  of  the  historical-critical  labors  of  De  Wette 
(t  1849)  and  Edouard  Reuss  (tiSgi). 

For  many  details  the  reader  is  referred  to 
the  following  pages. 

§  5.  History  of  Pentateuchai^  Criticism. 

Excepting  the  last  eight  verses,  the  Jews 
and  the  ancient  Church  held  the  Pentateuch 
as  the  work  of  Moses.  The  denial  of  its 
Mosaic  authorship  by  Celsus  and  other  early 
antagonists  of  Christianity  was  not  founded 
upon  critical,  but  dogmatic  reasons.  Andreas 
Bodenstein  of  Carlstadt^  (t  1541)  was  the  first 
to  question  on  critical  grounds  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  Pentateuchal 
law  he  recognized  as  of  Moses,  but  the  thread 
of  the  narrative  and  the  style  excited  his  sus- 
picion. Andreas  Masius^  (t  1574)  believed  that 
the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  could  not 
have  been  written  by  Moses,  and  supported  his 
view  more  especially  by  the  occurrence  of 
names  not  in  existence  during  the  time  of 
Moses  {e.g.^  Dan-Laish).     The  long-cherished 


^Ivibellus  de  Caiionicis  Scripturis. 
''■  Kommentar  zu  Josua. 


48  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

hope  that  the  force  of  the  attacks  upon  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  could  be 
weakened  by  the  interpolation  hypothesis, 
was  finally  given  up  by  the  majority. 

The  first  to  base  a  systematic  and  scien- 
tific criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  upon  a  literary 
analysis  was  Jean  Astruc^  (t  1766),  royal  phy- 
sician and  professor  of  medicine  in  Paris. 
Others  before  him,  as  Vitringa,  had  conjectured 
that,  in  the  composition  of  Genesis,  Moses 
had  employed  older  sources.  Adopting  this 
idea,  Astnic  asserted  that  Moses  had  not  even 
worked  over  these  sources,  but  had  merely 
placed  them  side  by  side  without  essential  al- 
teration. He  also  undertook  to  distinguish 
these  sources  from  one  another.  This  he  did 
by  taking  as  his  criterion  the  peculiar  use  of 
the  names  of  God — in  some  passages  only 
Elohim,  in  others  only  Jehovah.  Besides  the 
two  sources  thus  distinguished,  he  supposed 
ten  others,  less  frequently  employed,  and  distin- 
guishable by  other  characteristics.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  thus  far  the  hand  of  Moses  in 
the  composition  of  Genesis  is  not  denied,  al- 

^  Conjectures  sur  les  meinoires  originaux,  etc. 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM.  49 

though  he  is  made  only  the  compiler.  Nor 
did  Astruc  dispute  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  four  additional  books.  Eichhorn'  showed 
that  the  passages  in  Genesis  which  Astruc  dis- 
tinguished by  the  divine  names  of  Elohim  and 
Jehovah  were  also  characterized  each  by  a 
different  linguistic  style.  This  discovery  is 
still  one  of  the  principal  supports  of  the 
critics.  He  held  that  the  other  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  were  composed  from  documents 
written  in  the  time  of  Moses,  some  of  them 
by  Moses  himself,  others  by  his  contempora- 
ries. The  compilation  of  all  the  documents 
of  which  the  Pentateuch  is  composed  he  is 
disposed  to  place  somewhere  between  Joshua 
and  Samuel.  De  Wette  was  the  first  to  dis- 
cover what  is  now  generally  held  by  the 
critics ;  namely,  that  Deuteronomy  differs 
wholly  in  character  from  the  preceding 
books ;  and  to-day  the  critics  maintain  a  dis- 
tinct source  for  Deuteronomy.  Frederick 
Bleek^  was  the  first  to  assert  that  the  death 


'  Einleituiig  in  das  A.  T. 

''Einige  aphoristische  Beitrage   zu  den  Unters,  iiber 


den  Pent. 


50  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

of  Moses  could  not  have  formed  the  natural 
conclusion  of  the  history  of  Israel  and  their 
exodus  from  Egypt ;  but  that  this  must  in- 
clude also  their  conquest  of  Canaan ;  and 
hence  that  Joshua  was  a  part  of  the  same 
work  with  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  idea  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch,  so  generally  accepted  at  the  present 
time.  Up  to  this  point  it  had  been  assumed 
that  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents 
could  only  be  traced  through  Genesis,  and  into 
Exodus  as  far  as  chapter  vi,  2  ;  but,  in  1831, 
Ewald^  showed  that  these  sources  could  be 
traced  with  distinctness  through  the  other 
books  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  a  short  time 
the  same  was  asserted  also  of  Joshua.  Thus 
another  evidence  of  a  Hexateuch  instead  of  a 
Pentateuch  was  added.  Karl  David  Ilgen^ 
and  H.  Hupfeld^ — the  former  prior  to  1834, 
the  latter  in    1853 — undertook   to  show   that 


^Consult  his  works  mentioned  above,  and  Theol. 
Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1831. 

''Die  Urkunden  des  Jerusalemisclien  Tempelarchivs 
in  ihrer  Urgestalt. 

^r)ie  Quellen  der  Genesis  u,  die  Art  ihrer  Zusam- 
rnensetzung. 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM.  5 1 

the  Elohim  and  Jehovah  documents  were  each 
composite  in  their  character,  and  not  the  work 
of  single  authors,  as  had  been  assumed. 

If  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble  at  this 
point  to  go  back  over  the  names  mentioned  in 
this  section,  and  fix  in  his  mind  just  what  it 
is  which  each  added  to  the  sum  of  critical 
conclusions,  it  will  greatly  facilitate  his  fur- 
ther study. 

It  will  be  observed,  also,  that  the  principal 
questions  are  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the 
*' sources"  are  traceable.  The  sources  or 
documents  themselves  were  supposed  to  be 
practically  of  the  age  in  or  immediately  sub- 
sequent to  that  in  which  Moses  lived.  But 
we  have  now  to  trace  the  development  of 
other  new  ideas,  more  startling  in  their  char- 
acter, because  they  completely  overturn  all 
our  former  opinions  concerning  the  date  of  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  Before  doing  so, 
however,  it  may  be  well  to  summarize  the  re- 
sults of  the  criticism  thus  far  noticed.^  First^ 
the  four  principal  sources  of  the    Hexateuch 


^  For  the   summary  here   given  we   are    indebted   to 
Professor  H.  Iv.  Strack,  of  Berlin. 


52  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

(the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua)  were  supposed 
to  be :  I.  The  Priestly  Code,  otherwise  known 
as  The  First  Elohist,  The  Foundation  Docu- 
ment (Grundschrift),  The  Book  of  Origins,  The 
Annalistic  Relator.  This  document  is  desig- 
nated by  Wellhausen  ^  by  the  letter  "P;"  by 
Dillmann  as  "A."  2.  The  Second  Elohist, 
otherwise  called  The  Younger  Elohist,  The 
North  Israelitish  Relator,  The  Third  Relator, 
The  Theocratic  Relator;  lettered  "E;"  by 
Dillmann,  *'  B."  3.  The  Jeliovist,  or  Jahvist, 
otherwise  called  The  Additor,  The  Fourth 
Relator,  The  Prophetic  Relator;  lettered  ''J;" 
by  Dillman,  "  C."  4.  The  Deuteronomist ; 
lettered  "  D."  Second^  that  several  sections 
of  the  Pentateuch,  although  preserved  for  us 
only  in  the  above-named  sources,  sprang  from 
a  period  considerably  earlier.  Among  these 
were  the  Decalogue,  The  Covenant  Book, 
Exodus  XX,  22-xxiii,  19,  the  principal  part  of 
the  song  in  Exodus  xv,  and  other  poetical 
portions.  Third^  that  the  Elohistic  Docu- 
ments, of  which   (see  above)  there  were  sup- 


'  Wellhausen's  designations  throughout  are  preferable, 
and  will  be  named  first. 


PRESENT-DAY  CRITICISM.  53 

posed  to  be  two,  were  older  than  the  Jeho- 
vistic.  Fourth^  that  P,  E,  and  J  had  been 
wrought  together  prior  to  D.  Essential  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  existed  only  with  refer- 
ence to  the  manner  in  which  these  documents 
were  brought  into  the  Pentateuch.  The  ma- 
jority supposed  that  one  editor  had  united  P, 
E,  and  J,  and  that  D  was  afterward  added. 
Schrader  supposed  that  the  Jahvist  had 
added  material  of  his  own  (J)  to  P  and  E, 
and  then  worked  the  whole  together.^  Ac- 
cording to  some,  the  Deuteronomist  united 
his  own  work  (D)  with  P,  E,  J ;  but  the  ma- 
jority were  of  the  opinion  that  P  E  J  and 
D  were  brought  together  by  a  special  editor. 

§  6.   Present-day   Criticism   of   the   Pen- 
tateuch. 

The  work  begun  by  Astruc  had  been 
carried  to  completion.  The  Pentateuch  was 
no  longer  regarded  as  originally  the  work  of 
Moses.  The  documents  entering  into  its 
composition  were  distinguished  the  one  from 


^In  his  De  Wette's  Einleitung. 


54  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM, 

the  other,  and  Joshua  was  regarded  as  or- 
ganically connected  with  the  Pentateuch. 
When  this  process  of  investigation  was  prac- 
tically ended,  the  thoughts  of  critics  took  a 
new  turn.  They  began  to  compare  the  con- 
tents of  the  Pentateuch  with  the  later  history, 
and  with  the  prophecies  of  Israel.  Simulta- 
neously, but  independently,  W.  Vatke^  and 
J.  F.  L.  George"  began  studies  of  this  kind. 
They  were  both  tinged  in  their  historical  phi- 
losophy by  the  principles  of  Hegel.  The 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch — Exodus,  Le- 
viticus, Numbers — were  supposed  to  be  charac- 
terized by  the  prominence  given,  in  the  laws 
they  contained,  to  the  understanding,  while 
the  laws  of  Deuteronomy  w^ere  distinguished 
as  those  of  the  feelings.  Their  studies  led 
them  to  believe  that  the  former  were  more 
recent  than  the  latter,  whose  origin  they 
placed  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  Hengstenberg,^ 
Ranke,^  and  others  answered  their  arguments; 


^  Die  Religion  des  Alten  Testamentes. 

'Die  alteren  Jiidischen  Feste   mit  eiuer    Kritik    der 


Gesetzgebung  des  Pentateuchs. 
^Die  Authentic  des  Pentateuchs. 
''  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Pentateuch, 


PRESENT-DAY  CRITICISM.  55 

their  philosophy  fell  into  disrepute,  and  their 
conclusions  seemed  destined  to  be  forgotten. 
But  even  earlier  than  Vatke  and  George, 
Edouard  Reuss '  had  carried  on  similar  studies, 
and  was  led  to  similar  conclusions.  As  he 
studied  the  condition  of  the  Jews,  as  described 
in  the  historical  books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and 
Kings,  he  thought  he  discovered  a  contradic- 
tion between  their  practice  and  the  laws  of 
Moses,  and  hence  concluded  that  they  could 
not  have  been  known  during  the  periods  de- 
scribed by  those  histories.  He  also  taught 
that  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  and  seventh 
centuries  seemed  to  know  nothing  of  the 
Mosaic  Code.  According  to  him  Deuteronomy 
was  the  oldest  part  of  the  law  given  in  the 
Pentateuch,  and  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel  was 
older  than  the  editing  of  the  Ritual  Code  and 
the  law  upon  which  the  final  elevation  of  the 
hierarchy  depended.  These  startling  conclu- 
sions, however,  received  little  attention,  and 
it  remained  for  others,  less  original  than  the 
three  pioneers  now  mentioned,  to  make  them 


'  Reuss  was  much  later  iu  publishing  his  views  than 
some  others.     See  his  works  mentioued  below. 


56  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

known  to  the  world.  An  earlier  student 
under  Professor  Reuss  was  the  first  to  win 
general  attention  to  the  new  form  of  criticism. 
K.  H.  Graf  ^  was  his  name,  and  to  him,  rather 
than  to  Wellhausen,  belongs  whatever  of  lit- 
erary honor  may  attach  to  the  achievement. 
He  distinguished  the  legislation  of  the  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  from  what  he  called 
the  primitive  document,  or  the  Elohistic  book 
of  history.  According  to  him  the  middle 
Pentateuchal  legislation  is  found  in  Exodus 
xii,  1-28,  43-51-xxv-xxxi,  xxxv-xl;  Levit- 
icus; Numbers  i,  i-x,  28,  xv,  xvi,  xvii,  and 
parts  of  xviii,  xix,  xxviii-xxxi,  xxxv,  16- 
xxxvi.  This,  he  declared,  bears  in  itself  the 
clearest  possible  evidences  of  its  post-exilic 
composition.  Leviticus  xvii-xxvi  contains  a 
book  of  law  composed  by  Bzekiel,  later  called 
the  Law  of  Holiness.  He  was  led  to  these 
conclusions  chiefly  by  his  investigations  of 
the  festivals,  the  priestly  ordinances,  and  the 
tabernacle.  His  utterances  were,  however, 
challenged  by  Riehm  and  Noldeke  with  such 
success  that  he  was  compelled  to  give  up  his 

^Die  geschichtlicheu  Biicher  des  Alten  Testamentes. 


PRESENT-DAY  CRITICISM.  57 

position ;  but  instead  of  returning  to  the 
early  composition  of  all,  declared  all  to  be 
post-exilic.  The  investigations  of  Kayser' 
confirmed  the  conclusions  of  Graf.  But  if 
Graf  first  won  general  attention  to  what  Reuss 
originated,  Wellhausen's  brilliant  presentation 
of  the  evidences  and  results  of  the  new  view 
won  large  numbers  of  adherents.  In  his 
"Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Israel"  he 
designated  the  course  of  reconstruction  neces- 
sary to  conform  the  history  of  the  religion 
and  tradition  of  the  Jews  to  the  recent  dis- 
coveries. His  "Composition  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch"  (so  far  as  we  know,  not  translated  into 
English)  presents  the  critical  reasons  for  his 
adherence  to  the  new  hypothesis.  After  it 
had  thus  been  popularized,  Reuss,  the  origi- 
nator of  the  idea,  discussed  the  whole  Penta- 
teuchal  question  in  two  separate  works — one 
in  French,  VHistoire  Sainte  et  la  Lot;  the 
other  in  German,  Die  Geschichte  der  heiligen 
Schriften  Alien  Testaments. 

It   may  be    well    here,   in    the    interest  of 


'Das  vorexilische   Bucli   der  Urgeschichte  Israels,  u" 
seine  Erweiterungen, 


58  777^  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

clearness,  to  point  out  the  difference  between 
the  results  of  criticism  as  portrayed  in  §  5 
and  those  just  stated.  The  former  was  a  crit- 
icism based  chiefly  on  literary  grounds;  the 
latter,  rather  on  historical.  The  former  asked 
after  the  literary  elements  entering  into  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch  (Hexateuch); 
the  latter  inquires  after  the  time  of  the  com- 
position. The  former  declared  that  Moses 
could  not  have  written  the  Pentateuch  in  its 
present  form;  the  latter  strongly  intimates 
that  he  wrote  none  of  it.  The  former  regards 
it  as  possible  that  the  Pentateuch  was  com- 
posed largely  of  writings  left  by  Moses,  and 
not  long  after  Moses'  death;  the  latter  places 
the  composition  of  Exodus-Numbers  subse- 
quent to  the  Exile.  The  former  compared 
the  language  of  the  various  parts  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch with  each  other,  and  with  Joshua,  to 
trace  the  different  literary  styles;  the  latter 
takes  up  the  history  and  the  prophecies,  and 
undertakes  to  prove  therefrom  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  unknown  until  a  very  late  period, 
because  no  trace  of  its  influence  can  be  found. 
The  former  sees   no    reason   why  the    Penta- 


PRESENT-DAY  CRITICISM.  59 

teuch  should  not  have  been  a  product  of  an 
early  period ;  the  latter  regards  it  impossible 
that  in  their  then  stage  of  development  the 
Jews  should  have  produced  the  Pentateuchal 
legislation,  and  regards  it  as  a  possible  off- 
spring only  of  the  later  age.  But  the  newer 
critical  school  has,  in  common  with  the  old, 
the  belief  in  a  variety  of  documents  as  con- 
stituents of  the  Pentateuch,  and  in  fact  could 
never  have  come  into  existence  without  the 
older  criticism. 

The  results  (presumptive)  of  present  Pen- 
tateuchal criticism  may  be  briefly  summarized 
as  follows:  The  first  four  books  are  a  compi- 
lation from  earlier  written  sources,  the  num- 
ber of  which  is  not  definitely  settled,  although 
opinions  waver  between  two  and  three ;  Deu- 
teronomy is  based  upon  a  still  different  source; 
the  sources  distinguishable  in  the  Pentateuch 
are  also  distinguishable  in  Joshua,  and  hence 
could  not  have  been  written  by  Moses;  or,  in 
other  words,  a  later  than  Moses  wrote  not 
only  the  Pentateuch  as  we  have  it,  but  also 
Joshua.  There  are  critics  who  deny  this  last 
conclusion,  together  with    the    supposed  fact 


6o  THE  HIGHEk  CRITICISM. 

Upon  which  it  is  based;  but  we  pretend  only 
to  state  here  the  conclusions  generally  re- 
ceived. The  critics  generally  deny  that  Moses 
claims  to  have  written  the  Pentateuch,  al- 
though they  do  not  generally  assert  that  he 
may  not  have  written  parts  now  incorporated 
into  it;  yet  that  he  wrote  any  of  the  princi- 
pal documents  of  which  the  Pentateuch  is 
formed  they  deny,  since  they  claim  that  these 
are  traceable  through  Joshua,  which  describes 
events  subsequent  to  the  death  of  Moses.  At 
best,  therefore,  the  critics  can  give  Moses  but 
little  credit  for  literary  activity  in  connection 
with  the  Pentateuch.  Since  Deuteronomy  is 
regarded  by  so  many  critics  as  having  been 
written  shortly  before  the  eighteenth  year  of 
King  Josiah  (B.  C.  621),  and  since  the  Deuter- 
onomic  source  extends  through  Joshua  along 
with  the  other  sources,  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  placed  of  necessity  subsequent 
to  B.  C.  621,  although  parts  of  it  may  be  much 
older.  The  question  then  arises,  What  is  the 
relative  and  what  the  absolute  age  of  the  dif- 
ferent sources  according  to  the  critics?  These 
are   questions   yet    in   dispute,   and   we    must 


AGE  OF  THE  SOURCES.  6 1 

therefore  content  ourselves  with  a  statement 
of  the  views  of  the  principal  investigators. 

§7.  The  Relative  and  Absolute  Age  of 
THE  Sources. 

The  reader  who  desires  to  follow  all  the 
details  of  criticism  must  needs  pause  here, 
and  familiarize  himself  with  the  names,  char- 
acteristics, and  extent  of  the  Hexateuchal 
documents.  For  this  purpose  we  would  rec- 
ommend the  "Introduction  to  the  Literature 
of  the  Old  Testament,"  by  Samuel  R.  Driver, 
D.  D.  An  attempt  to  present  all  this  matter 
here  would  carry  us  beyond  the  design  of  this 
work.^     But  we  may  clarify  the  subject  some- 


^For  convenience  and  by  way  of  illustration  we  here 
give  Driver's  summary  of  the  Priest's  Code : 

Genesis  i,  i-ii,  4";  v,  i  28,  30-32;  vi,  9-22;  vii,  6,  7-9 
(in  parts),  11,  13-16",  18-21,  24;  viii,  i,  2",  3^-5,  13",  14-19; 
ix,  1-17,  28,  29;  X,  1-7,  20,  22,  23,  31,  32;  xi,  10-27,  3I'  32; 
xii,  4\  5;  xiii,  6,  11*,  12";  xvi,  i",  3,  15,  16;  xvii;  xix,  29; 
xxi,  I*,  2*-5;  xxiii;  xxv,  7-  11",  12-17,  19,  20,  26'';  xxvi,  34, 
35;  xxvii,  46;  xxviii,  1-9;  xxix,  24,  29;  xxxi,  18*;  xxxiii, 
18";  xxxiv,  I,  2",  4,  6,  8-10,  13-18,  20-24,  25  (partly),  27-29; 
xxxv,  9-13,  15,  22*-29;  xxxvi  (in  the  main)  ;  xxxvii,  i,  2"; 
xli,  46;  xlvi,  6-27  ;  xlvii,  5,  6"  (Ix'x),  7-1 1,  27'',  28 ;  xlviii, 
3-6,  7  (?);  xlix,  i\  28*-33;  1,  12,  13. 

Exodus  i,  1-7,  13,  14,  23''-25;    vi,  2-7,  13,  19,  20",  2I^  22; 


62  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

what  by  stating  that  P  begins  with  the  first 
word  of  Genesis  and  runs  through  Joshua. 
P  contains  both  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  ele- 
ments, the  question  being  which  is  the  elder, 
the  majority  leaning  toward  the  greater  age 
of  E.  Besides  the  Jehovistic  source — which 
begins  with  Genesis  ii,  4 — the  Elohistic,  the 
Priest's  Code,  and  Deuteronomy,  Dillmann 
adds  S,  the  Sinaitic  Law. 

It  is  usually  admitted  that  D  is  younger 
than  J.  Hupfeld,  Ewald,  Knobel,  Schrader, 
and  Riehm  regard  P  as  the  oldest  documen- 


viii,  5-7,  i5*-i9;  ix,  8-12;  xii,  1-20,  28,  37",  40-51  ;  xiii,  i, 
2,  20;  xiv,  1-4,  8,  9,  15-18,  21",  2i''-23,  26,  27a,  28%  29;  xvi, 
1-3,6-24,31-36;  xvii,  I";  xix,  I,  2";  xxiv,  15-18";  xxv, 
i-xxxi,  18";  xxxiv,  29-35;  xxxv-xl. 

Leviticus  i-xvi ;  (xvii-xxvi)  ;  xxvii. 

Numbers  i,  i-x,  28;  xiii,  1-17",  21,  25,  26"  (to  Paran), 
32" ;  xiv,  1,2  {in  the  main),  5-7,  10,  26-38  (in  the  main)  ;  xv ; 
xvi,  I",  2*-7''  (7'-ii),  (16,  17),  18-24,  27^  32\  35  (36-40), 41-50; 
xvii-xix;  xx,  i"  (to  month),  2,  3*,  6,  12,  13,  22-29;  ^^i* 
4"  (to  Hor),  10,  II  ;  xxii,  i  ;  xxv,  6-18;  xxvi-xxxi ;  xxxii, 
18,  19,  28-32  (with  traces  in  1-17,  20-27)  \  xxxiii-xxxvi. 

Deuteronomy  xxxii,  48-52  ;  xxxiv,  i",  8,  9. 

Joshua  iv,  13,  19;  v,  10-12;  vii,  i;  ix,  15*,  17-21;  xiii, 
15-32;  xiv,  1-5;  XV,  1-13,  28-44,  48-62;  xvi,  4-8;  xvii, 
I"  (i*,  2),  3,  4,  7,  9",  9",  10";  xviii,  I,  11-28;  xix,  1-8,  10-46, 
48,  51 ;  XX,  1-3  (except  "  and  unawares  "),  6''  (to  judgment), 
7-9  (cf.  Ixx)  ;  xxi,  1-42  (xxii,  9-34). 


AGE  OF  THE  SOUFCES.  63 

tary  source  of  the  Pentateach,  while  Dillmann 
regards  it  as  old,  though  not  the  oldest.  On 
the  other  hand,  P  is  regarded  as  the  youngest 
portion  of  the  Pentateuch  by  Graf,  Kayser, 
Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  and  Reuss.  When  we 
consider  the  contents  of  P,  we  discover  the 
tremendous  significance  of  the  position  that 
it  w^as  more  recently  composed  than  any 
other  document  of  the  Pentateuch.  As  to 
the  absolute  age  of  the  sources,  Noldeke 
holds  that  P,  E,  and  J  belong  to  the  tenth,  or, 
more  likely  still,  the  ninth  century  B.  C.  P  is 
not  the  oldest,  but  can  not  be  much  younger 
than  the  two  others.  D  was  written  shortly 
before  the  reformation  under  Josiah.  Ezekiel 
is  dependent  upon  P.  Schrader  places  P  at 
the  beginning  of  David's  reign;  E,  soon  after 
the  division  of  the  kingdom  ;  J,  added  to  his 
predecessors,  and  worked  them  together  be- 
tween 825  and  800.  D  was  composed  shortly 
before  Josiah's  reformation  ;  and  the  Deuter- 
onomist  continued  the  history  down  to  2  Kings 
XXV,  21.  The  separation  of  the  Pentateuch, 
in  its  present  form,  from  the  other  historical 


64  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

books  did  not  take  place  until  the  end  of 
the  Exile.  Dilbnann'^  makes  the  Hexateuch  to 
consist  of  five  documents — E,  P,  J,  D,  and  S 
(Sinaitic  Law).  E  was  written  by  some  one 
from  the  Northern  Kingdom,  during  the  first 
half  of  the  ninth  century  B.  C.  J  is  a  Judaic 
document,  written  not  earlier  than  the  middle 
of  the  eighth  century.  D  was  written  not 
long  before  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah; 
P  he  places  about  800;  S  is  composed  of 
portions  as  old  as  Moses,  and  as  recent  as  the 
Exile.  Before  the  return  of  Ezra,  the  Penta- 
teuch was  separated  from  Joshua.  Ezra  gave 
the  Pentateuch  public  recognition  in  444. 
Still  later  scribes  worked  over  certain  portions 
of  the  text,  but  added  no  new  laws  and  no 
new  historical  incidents.  Delitzsch^  in  his 
latest  "  Commentary  on  Genesis,"  does  not 
give  exact  dates  for  the  various  documents. 
In  1880  he  fixed  the  sources  in  the  following 
order:  J;  D  (subsequent  to  Solomon,  but  prior 
to  Isaiah);  the  law  of  holiness;  P  (prior  to 
the  Exile).     Both  P  and  D  underwent  modifi- 


^  Uber  die  Komposition  des  Hexateuchs  in  Coinmen- 
tar  zu  Numbers,  Deuteronomy,  and  Joshua. 


AGE  OF  THE  SOURCES.  65 

cations  subsequent  to  their  original  composi- 
tion. Of  the  two  principal  documentary 
forms,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  Jehovistic- 
Deuteronomic  follows  the  old  Mosaic  type 
than  the  Elohistic.  P  is  younger  than  J. 
The  processes  by  which  the  Pentateuch  was 
brought  into  its  present  form  continued  until 
after  the  post-exilian  period.  Ezra,  in  444, 
probably  read  only  P  in  the  presence  of  the 
people.  These  are  very  important  conces- 
sions, and  bring  Delitzsch  almost  over  to  the 
side  of  Wellhausen^^  who  places  J  in  the 
period  of  the  prophets  and  kings  who  preceded 
the  dissolution  of  the  two  kingdoms.  E  is 
younger,  and  E  and  J  were  later  united  into 
EJ.  D  was  composed  in  the  period  in  which 
it  was  discovered.  The  principal  part  of  Le- 
viticus xvii-xxvi  was  composed  during  the 
Exile,  subsequent  to  Ezekiel.  P  is  not  the 
product  of  one  author,  but  is  the  result  of  la- 
bors extending  through  and  beyond  the  Exile. 
Only  a  careful,  protracted,  and  painstaking 
study  of  these  views  as  to  the  relative  and 
absolute  agfe  of  the  sources  of  the  Pentateuch 


'  See  mention  of  his  works  above. 
5 


66  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

will  enable  the  reader  to  jiidge  which  is  more 
and  which  less  radical.  In  fact,  they  are  all 
so  much  at  variance  with  traditional  opinion 
as  to  leave  but  little  choice  between  them. 
All  make  the  earliest  sources,  with  but  few 
unimportant  exceptions,  the  product  of  a 
comparatively  late  age.  All  deny  the  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  to  Moses;  and  this  is 
the  position  of  most  other  critics  of  Germany 
and  England.  Almost  without  exception,  they 
believe  in  the  Hexateuch ;  and  some  even 
trace  the  Pentateuchal  sources  beyond  Joshua, 
into  Judges. 

§8.  Summary  of  the  Argument  for  the 
Date  of  D  and  P.^ 

Intimations  have  been  already  given,  but 
it  will  be  better  to  bring  all  the  arguments 
together  here  in  brief.  We  begin  with  the 
generally  accepted  theory  of 

DEUTERONOMY. 

The  theory  is  that  this  book  was  written 
later  than  the  sources  J,  E.     This  is  supported 


^  Compare  Driver's  Introduction  and  Briggs's  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch. 


SUM3TARV  OF  THE  ARGUMENT.  67 

on  the  ground  that  the  legislation  of  Deuter- 
onomy presupposes  a  more  highly  developed 
civil  organization  than  JE.  The  historical 
books,  in  perfect  accord  with  the  foregoing 
fact,  give  evidence  that  Deuteronomy  was  not 
composed  until  after  the  establishment  of  the 
monarchy.  Deuteronomy  forbids  the  offering 
of  sacrifice  except  at  a  single  fixed  place ; 
while  in  Exodus  xx,  24,  many  places  of  wor- 
ship are  implied.  Now,  in  Joshua  and  First 
and  Second  Samuel,  the  practice  seems  to  have 
been  in  accord  with  JE,  and  in  conflict  with 
Deuteronomy.  (Joshua  xxiv,  i,  26;  i  Sam. 
vii,  9f.,  17;  ix,  12-14;  X,  3,  5,  8;  xi,  15; 
xiv,  35;  xx,  6;  2  Sam.  xv,  12,  32.)  According 
to  2  Kings  xxii,  xxiii,  Deuteronomy  must 
have  been  in  existence  as  early  as  the 
eighteenth  year  of  King  Josiah  (B.  C.  621). 
That  it  is  not  much  earlier,  the  critics  main- 
tain on  the  ground  that  the  law  of  the  king- 
dom (Deut.  xvii,  14  ff.)  seems  to  have  been  in- 
fluenced by  facts  of  Solomon's  reign ;  that, 
while  Judges-Kings  make  no  mention  of  the 
worship  of  the  ''  host  of  heaven,"  although  de- 
scribing various  other  forms  of  idolatry,  Deu- 


68  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

teroiiomy  presupposes  its  practice  ;  that  while 
the  earlier  prophets — such  as  Amos,  Hosea,  and 
I  Isaiah — appear  not  to  be  influenced  by  Deu- 
teronomy, Jeremiah,  and  other  later  prophets 
exhibit  marked  traces  of  the  book;  that  the 
theology  of  Deuteronomy  is  more  advanced 
than  could  be  expected  in  the  early  history  of 
Israel,  while  it  approaches  more  nearly  that 
of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  Yet  Deuteronomy 
must  not  be  regarded  as  a  forgery,  since 
Moses  does  not  profess  to  be  its  author, 
much  of  its  matter  is  very  ancient,  and  the 
book  is  only  an  adaptation  of  older  legislation 
in  the  light  of  prophetic  teaching. 

ARGUMENTS  AS  TO  THE  PRIEST'S  CODE. 

The  literature  of  the  period  prior  to  the 
Exile  shows  no  trace  of  the  legislation  of  P. 
In  P,  the  place  of  sacrifice  is  strictly  limited ; 
in  Judges  and  Samuel  it  is  not  so.  In  P, 
only  priests  may  offer  sacrifice ;  in  Judges 
and  Samuel,  laymen  off"er,  without  any  protest 
even  from  such  men  as  Samuel  and  David. 
In  P,  the  arrangements  for  the  care  of  the  ark 
are  elaborate ;  in  Samuel  they  are  very  sim- 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  ARGUMENT.  69 

pie.  According  to  P,  the  ark  could  never 
have  been  taken  into  battle  as  in  i  Samuel 
i-iii.  When  the  ark  was  restored  to  Kirjath- 
Jearim,  it  was  not  in  the  hands  of  the  persons 
P  prescribes  as  its  exclusive  protectors.  So 
also,  when  David  removed  it  to  Zion.  (Com- 
pare 2  Sam.  vi,  with  Num.  iii,  41;  iv,  1-15). 
Further,  Deuteronomy  seems  to  know  nothing 
of  P.  Had  P  been  in  existence  when  D  wrote, 
he  must  have  made  references  to  it.  But  while 
Deuteronomy  commands  the  centralization  of 
worship,  P  assumes  that  such  is  already  the 
case.  In  Deuteronomy,  any  man  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi  may  exercise  the  right  to  sacrifice,  if 
he  live  at  the  central  place  of  worship ;  in  P, 
only  the  sons  of  Aaron  may  exercise  this  right ; 
and,  in  all  particulars,  P  shows  greater  de- 
velopment than  Deuteronomy,  and  hence  ap- 
pears to  be  later. 

That  P  is  also  later  than  Ezekiel,  at  least 
in  some  of  its  parts,  is  also  maintained  by  the 
extreme  critical  school.  They  claim  that, 
while  P  excluded  all  except  sons  of  Aaron 
from  priestly  rights,  Ezekiel  assumes  (chapter 
xliv,  13)  that  all  Levites  had  exercised  these 


70  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

privileges.  Ezekiel  now  commands  that  only 
the  sons  of  Zadok,  who  alone  had  not  idola- 
trously  worshiped  at  the  high  places,  should 
be  clothed  with  the  office  of  priests.  Had  he 
known  of  P,  he  would  not  have  reduced  all 
other  Levites  after  admitting  that  they  had 
lawfully  been  priests.  Rather  he  would  have 
pointed  to  the  provisions  of  P  as  showing 
that  only  the  sons  of  Aaron  could  exercise 
priestly  rights.  Besides,  as  Ezekiel's  regula- 
tions (chapters  xl-xlviii)  are  more  elaborate 
than  those  of  Deuteronomy,  so  P  is  more  elabo- 
rate than  Ezekiel,  showing  that  the  order  of  age 
is  Deuteronomy,  Ezekiel,  and  P.  The  final  ar- 
gument is  from  the  more  pure  conception  of 
God,  and  the  generally  evident  marks  of  a 
higher  stage  of  culture,  and  freedom  from 
primitive  conceptions  in  P. 

But  as  Deuteronomy  is  not  supposed  to 
have  been  an  invention  of  the  age  of  Josiah, 
so  P  is,  though  a  late  composition,  not  in  all 
its  parts  equally  late.  It  allows  the  great 
antiquity  of  the  principal  parts  of  the  Israel- 
itish  ritual.  In  fact,  P  is  really  in  the  main 
a   codification  of   temple   usages   which    had 


THE  PROPHETICAL  BOOKS.  7 1 

gradually  grown  up  in  the  course  of  the  cen- 
turies, and  it  only  changes  these  in  certain  of 
their  forms.  Although  Ezekiel  is  earlier  than 
P,  yet  Ezekiel  presupposes  some  things  con- 
tained in  P,  particularly  the  Law  of  Holiness. 
The  arguments  by  which  it  is  attempted  to 
fix  the  approximate  date  of  the  different  in- 
stitutions, the  regulations  concerning  which 
are  codified  in  P,  we  can  not  give  here.  The 
reader  can  not  avoid  observing  the  large  place 
thus  given  by  the  critics  to  evolutionary  prin- 
ciples in  their  conclusions. 

§9.  Criticism  of  the  Prophetical  Books. 

It  will  be  found  more  convenient  to  pass 
over  the  books  Joshua — Song  of  Solomon  for 
the  present.  But  before  taking  up  the  pro- 
phetical books  in  order,  it  may  be  w^ell  to 
briefly  summarize  the  results  of  criticism  rel- 
ative to  the  nature  or  function  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy.  Critics  do  not  generally  re- 
gard prediction  as  the  chief  element  of 
prophecy.^      The    mere   foretelling  of   future 


^  So  Orelli,  The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah  ;  Delitzsch,  Com- 
meutar}'  ou  Isaiah ;  Farrar,  The  Minor  Prophets. 


72  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

events,  with  the  details  of  time  and  place, 
was  too  wanting  in  the  moral  and  spiritual 
purpose  which  distinguished  the  prophets. 
Kuenen  denies  all  inspired  prediction  in  Re- 
threw prophecy.  But  the  majority  admit  pre- 
diction just  as  they  admit  miracle.  Each 
prediction,  however,  is  to  be  examined  by  it- 
self, by  the  application  of  grammatical  and 
historical  tests,  and  it  is  no  detriment  to  it  it 
not  literally  fulfilled;  for  the  type  can  not  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  equal  the  fulfillment, 
and  the  prophets  were  limited  in  their  em- 
ployment of  figures  by  the  material  which 
their  knowledge  of  the  age  in  which  they 
lived  and  of  the  past  furnished.  Each  pro- 
phetic utterance  has  but  one  meaning,  gen- 
erally limited  to  the  immediate  environment 
of  the  prophet.  But  criticism  admits  a  sym- 
bolism where  it  denies  direct  prediction.'  This 
does  not  give  a  prophetic  passage  a  double 
sense,  but  makes  it  possible  to  apply  the  same 
words  to  the  description  of  different  events. 
The  prophets  generally  spoke  of  their  predic- 
tions as    about    to   be    fulfilled,  showing  that 

'  Hortoii,  Revelation  and  the  Bible. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ISAIAH.  73 

they  themselves  did  not  know  the  times  and 
the  seasons.  Hence  it  is  possible  to  deny 
fulfillment  to  many  of  the  prophecies  if  they 
be  taken  in  all  literalness.  If,  however,  they 
be  regarded  not  as  advance  descriptions  of 
historical  events,  but  as  utterances  designed 
to  move  upon  the  hearts  of  the  auditors,  they 
can  not  be  denied  fulfillment.  Besides,  many 
prophecies  go  unfulfilled  because  of  a  change 
in  the  purpose  of  God  or  the  conduct  of  man. 
This  is  particularly  true  of  the  threatenings 
and  the  promises.  The  main  point  to  be  no- 
ticed is,  that  the  denial  of  miracle  goes  hand 
in  hand  with  the  denial  of  prediction.  But 
the  conservative  critic  admits  and  emphasizes 

both. 

§10.  Thk  Book  of  Isaiah. 

Critics  are  agreed  in  dividing  this  book 
into  three  parts;  namely:  Chapters  i-xxxv; 
xxxvi-xxxix;  xl-lxvi.  The  middle  portion 
is  historical  in  its  contents,  and  is  believed  to 
be  of  much  later  origin  than  the  first  part. 
The  third  part  was  not  written  by  Isaiah,  but 
by  the  ''Great  Unknown,"  at  the  close  of  the 
Exile.      The    first    to    question    the    unity    of 


74  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Isaiah  was  Doderlein,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
last  century,  and  his  views  were  essentially 
those  of  the  critics  of  the  present  day. 

The  principal  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
supposing  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  last  twenty- 
seven  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  are: 
I.  The  historical  background}  Throughout 
all  these  chapters  the  writer  assumes  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Exile,  but  also  its  early  end. 
Judea  has  long  lain  waste,  and  Jerusalem  and 
the  temple  in  ruins.  Babylon  has  long  op- 
pressed Israel,  but  her  dominion  will  soon 
cease.  The  time  of  the  Assyrian  oppression 
is  in  the  distant  past  (chap.  Hi,  4  f.)  These 
assumptions  are  supposed  to  be  incompatible 
with  the  authorship  by  Isaiah,  whose  entire 
prophecies  are  connected  with  the  Assyrian 
period.  Were  this  part  of  Isaiah  from  the 
same  pen  as  the  former  part  there  would  have 
been  some  recognition  of  the  change  from 
the  Assyrian  to  the  Babylonian  rulership,  and 
some  mention  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  captivity  of  the  people.  He  could 
not  have  supposed  that,  except  from  his  own 

^  Compare  throughout,  Dinmaini,  Der  Prophet  Jesaia. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ISAIAH.  75 

pen,  such  an  event  would  be  anticipated.  It 
was  difficult  even  in  Jeremiah's  day  to  make 
such  a  possibility  comprehensible  to  the  na- 
tion. Besides,  every  prophet  aims  to  affect 
his  contemporaries;  but  the  chapters  in  ques- 
tion take  up  a  situation  wholly  different  from 
that  in  which  Isaiah  lived.  Furthermore,  the 
author  of  these  chapters  repeatedly  refers  to 
prophecies  of  the  very  conditions  he  assumes 
as  existing.  Isaiah  could  not  have  had  such 
prophecies  before  him,  since  they  were  first 
uttered  by  Jeremiah  and  Habakkuk.  2.  The 
ideas  and  doctrines  of  the  latter  are  wholly  dif- 
ferent from  the  former  part.  Not  threats  of 
punishment  on  account  of  sin,  but  consolation 
in  the  midst  of  affliction,  and  the  prospect  of 
early  release.  Again,  Isaiah  assumes  the  noth- 
ingness of  the  false  gods,  and  the  rulership  of 
Jehovah  even  over  the  heathen.  His  purpose 
is  to  impress  upon  men's  minds  the  thought 
of  God's  holiness.  The  author  of  this  por- 
tion of  Isaiah,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  it  a 
principal  business  to  declare  the  true  deity  of 
Jehovah  to  his  people  and  to  all  the  world. 
3.    The  literary  style  of  this  is  differ e7it  from  the 


76  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

for 77ier  part.     Of  this  argument  no  illustration 
need  be  given  here. 

But  it  is  not  held  by  the  critics  that  the 
first  thirty-five  chapters  are  all  Isaian.  The 
majority  exclude  from  the  true  Isaian  por- 
tions chapters  xiii-xiv,  23;  xxiv-xxvii;  xxxiv. 
It  may  be  helpful  to  give  the  arguments,  at 
least  in  the  case  of  xiii-xiv,  23.  This  is  re- 
garded as  having  been  composed  in  the  period 
of  the  Babylonian  exile,  for  the  following  rea- 
sons: I.  Every  prophecy  must  have  an  occasion 
to  call  it  forth.  No  prophet  speaks  except  as 
the  situation  in  which  he  is  placed  demands 
it.  In  chapter  xiii,  6,  22,  the  occasion  which 
prompts  this  prophecy  is  stated  to  be  the 
nearness  of  the  judgment  upon  Babylon, 
which  was  to  bring  the  release  of  Israel.  God 
has  his  instruments  ready  (xiii,  3  f.)  in  the 
Medes  (xiii,  17).  But  such  a  situation'  never 
existed  in  the  time  of  Isaiah.  2.  The  histor- 
ical background  lies  far  from  the  time  of  Isaiah, 
Nothing  is  said  of  Assyria.  Babylon  is  the 
ruler  who  has  long  trodden  Israel  under  foot 
without  pity  (xiv,  i  f.)  Isaiah  has  never 
mentioned  the  transfer  of  authority  to  Baby- 


THE  BOOK  OF  ISAIAH.  77 

Ion,  nor  announced  the  Exile.  Whoever  wrote 
these  chapters  simply  and  unannounced  takes 
his  standpoint  in  the  Babylonian  exile. 
3.  The  spirit  and  tone  of  these  chapters  proves 
the  same.  The  author  makes  no  attempt  to 
hide  his  joy  at  the  speedy  fall  of  Babylon; 
and  pictures  with  delight  the  terrible  fate  of 
Babylon,  its  inhabitants,  and  its  ruler.  He 
expresses  the  bitterest  irony  upon  the  antici- 
pated humiliation  of  the  tyrant.  Such  a 
sentiment  would  be  explicable  in  one  who 
had  experienced  the  wretchedness  of  the  Ex- 
ile, but  not  in  Isaiah,  who  never  spoke  thus 
even  of  the  Assyrians.  4.  A  final  argument 
is  drawn  from  the  literary  style,  which,  how- 
ever, is  not  as  strong  as  the  others. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  here  to  answer,  or 
even  weigh  the  conclusions  reached  by  criti- 
cism. For  this  the  reader  is  recommended 
to  any  of  the  excellent  introductions  to  the 
study  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  Our  task  is 
merely  to  set  forth,  as  briefly  as  possible,  the 
most  generally  accepted  results  of  recent 
criticism. 


78  the  higher  criticism. 

§11.  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 

The  chief  critical  problems  concerning 
Jeremiah  pertain  to  its  relation  to  the  text  of 
the  Septuagint,  and  to  the  genuineness  of  cer- 
tain portions  (x,  1-16;  xxv,  ii''-i4";  xxvii, 
7,  16-21;  xxxiii,  14-26;  xxxix,  i,  2,  4-13; 
1;  li),  opinions  being  divided.'  The  Sep- 
tuagint text  is  almost  always  shorter  where 
it  differs  from  the  Massoretic ;  but  it  is 
generally  agreed  that  the  Massoretic  text  is 
preferable.  Kiihl  says:  "The  principal  di- 
vergences of  the  Septuagint  from  the  Massora 
must  be  charged  to  the  translator — divergen- 
ces so  deliberate  that  we  can  not  attribute 
them  to  a  transcriber,  but  only  to  a  trans- 
lation." 

Ezekiel  ^  is  of  special  interest  to-day  be- 
cause the  newer  critical  school  places  it  earlier 
than  the  Priests'  Code,  for  which  it  prepared 
the  way.     As  a  priest,  Ezekiel  might  well  be 


^  See  Zockler's  Haiidbuch  der  Theologischen  Wissen- 
schaften. 

'^Compare  von  Orelli,  in  Strack  and  Zockler's  Kurzge- 
fasstes  Konimentar. 


JEREMIAH  AND  EZEKIEL.  79 

supposed  to  have  known  the  temple  ritual 
prior  to  the  Exile.  The  provisions  made  by 
Ezekiel  for  the  temple  service  recognize  some 
things  forbidden  by  P;  for  example,  the  rights 
of  Levites  in  connection  with  the  temple. 
(Chapter  xliv,  10,  13.)  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Law  of 
Holiness  was  known  to  Ezekiel.  The  lan- 
guage in  chapter  iv,  14,  indicates  this;  with 
which  compare  Leviticus  xxii,  8.  Many  other 
passages  might  be  adduced.  (See  list  in 
Driver's  Introduction,  p.  139.)  Some,  indeed, 
see  so  much  and  so  many  resemblances  be- 
tween Ezekiel  and  the  Law  of  Holiness  that 
they  have  concluded  that  the  prophecy  and 
H  were  both  by  one  author;  but,  while  the 
evidence  of  this  is  strong,  it  has  not  met  even 
with  general  favor,  on  account  of  differences 
of  style  and  matter.  Thus  parts,  but  not 
all,  of  P  were  known  to  Ezekiel.  Since  the 
relation  of  Ezekiel  to  P  has  been  already 
treated,  however,  we  follow  the  subject  no 
further  here.  The  genuineness  of  Ezekiel 
throughout  is  almost  universally  admitted. 


8o  the  higher  criticism. 

§12.  The  Minor  Prophets. 

We  pass  by  the  Book  of  Daniel  for  the 
present,  reserving  it  for  subsequent  special 
mention.  Kuenen  gives  the  chronological 
order  of  the  prophets  as  follows : 

1.  B.  C.  900-850.  Pre- Assyrian  Period  — 
Amos,  Hosea,  Joel  (?). 

2.  B.  C.  850-700.  The  Assyrian  Period — 
Micah,  Isaiah. 

3.  B.  C.  626-586.  The  Chaldean  Period— 
Nahum,  Zephaniah,  Jeremiah,  Habakkuk,  the 
elder  Zechariah  (see  under  Zechariah  below), 
Obadiah. 

4.  B.  C.  586-536.     The  Exile— Ezekiel. 

5.  B.  C.  520-400.  The  Post-Exilic  Proph- 
ets— Zechariah,  Haggai,  Malachi. 

Of  the  prophets  of  the  first  period,  we 
may  pass  by  Amos  and  Hosea,  since  there  are 
no  very  important  critical  questions  raised 
concerning  them.  Joel,'  however,  is  under 
dispute.  The  more  conservative  critics  place 
his  prophecies   in   the  first  decade  of  Joash, 


^  See  Farrar,  Minor  Prophets,  and  von  Orelli  in  Strack 
and  Zockler,  Knrzgefasstes  Komnientar. 


THE  MINOR  PROPHETS.  8 1 

basing  this  early  date  upon  the  fact  that  he 
seemed  to  know  nothing  of  Syrian  or  Assyr- 
ian oppressions,  and  represented  the  foes  of 
Judah  as  Phoenicians,  Philistines,  Egyptians, 
and  Edomites ;  and  further  upon  the  apparent 
knowledge  of  Joel's  prophecy  exhibited  by 
Amos.  (Compare  Amos  i,  2,  with  Joel  iv,  16; 
and  Amos  ix,  13,  with  Joel  iv,  18.) 

But  the  adherents  of  the  modern  views  of 
the  Pentateuch  generally  place  the  prophecy 
of  Joel  subsequent  to  the  Exile.  The  princi- 
pal arguments  upon  which  they  base  this 
view  are,  that  the  prophecy  makes  no  mention 
of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  which  would 
scarcely  have  been  possible  in  the  days  of 
Joash ;  that  he  does  not  condemn  idolatry, 
one  of  the  chief  sins  of  the  times  of  the 
Kings;  and  that  he  makes  no  mention  of  the 
High  Places,  so  frequently  rebuked  by  the 
early  prophets.  Chiefly,  however,  their  de- 
pendence is  upon  the  theology,  eschatology, 
and  ritualism  of  Joel,  all  of  which  are  said 
to  be  post-exilic,  rather  than  exilic  or  pre- 
exilic.  It  is  also  supposed  that  his  references 
to  the  elders  and  inhabitants  of  the  land,  and 


82  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM, 

not  to  the  kings  and  princes,  as  was  usual 
with  the  prophets,  point  to  the  very  state  of 
organization  which  obtained  under  the  Per- 
sians. Furthermore,  Joel  iii,  i,  and  iii,  17,  are 
interpreted  as  direct  references  to  the  Baby- 
lonish Captivity.  It  will  be  seen  that  the 
principal  arguments  for  the  late  date  are  simi- 
lar to  those  which  decide  the  late  origin  of 
the  Priests'  Code  in  the  Pentateuch. 

The  only  other   book  demanding  mention 

here  is 

§13.  Zechariah.' 

It  is  uniformly  agreed  that  chapters  i-viii 
were  written  after  the  return  from  the  Exile, 
and  that  the  author  was  a  contemporary  of 
Haggai;  but  as  early  as  1638,  English  theo- 
logians suspected  that  the  later  chapters  must 
be  attributed  to  another  author.  What  aroused 
their  suspicion  was  the  reference  of  a  proph- 
ecy in  Zechariah  to  Jeremiah  by  Matthew 
xxvii,  9.  One  hundred  and  fifty  years  later 
(1784),  Pastor  Fliigge,  of  Hamburg,  in  an 
anonymous  work,  supported  the  supposition 
that   chapters    ix-xiv  did    not  originate  with 

^See  works  referred  to  under  Joel. 


ZECHARIAH.  83 

Zechariah.  Since  then  tliis  view  has  been 
generally  maintained  by  critics.  INIany  are 
also  inclined  to  make  the  anthorship  of  the 
last  six  chapters  twofold,  attributing  ix-xi  to 
a  contemporary  of  Hosea,  and  xii-xiv  to  a 
writer  who  lived  but  a  short  time  prior  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  style  of  ix-xi 
is  different  from  i-viii;  its  view  of  the  temple 
and  its  ordinances,  and  its  references  to  moral 
conditions  are  also  different.  There  is  no 
trace  of  the  angelology  of  the  first  eight  chap- 
ters; the  death  of  Josiah  is  recent  (xii,  i) ; 
the  people  are  still  idolatrous  (x,  2),  which 
was  not  the  case  after  the  Bxile.  Thus,  if 
we  think  of  ix-xi  as  pre-exilic,  and  of  i-viii 
as  post-exilic,  we  can  more  easily  explain  these 
divergences  of  view.  The  author  of  xii-xiv 
anticipates  some  terrible  disaster.  Jerusalem 
will  be  dishonored  (xiv,  2).  This  probably 
referred  to  the  coming  siege  and  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  under  Nebuchadnezzar.  Thus, 
instead  of  one  Zechariah  we  have  three,  as 
we  have  three  parts  in  Isaiah  instead  of  one. 
If  such  a  severing  of  what  seems  to  the  or- 
dinary reader  a  unit  is  condemned  as  unjusti- 


84  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

fiable,  the  critic  is  ready  with  a  reply.  He 
affirms  that  written  prophecies  were  often 
anonymous;  that  they  were  first  collected 
into  the  canon  subsequent  to  the  Exile;  that, 
meantime,  traditions  as  to  authorship  had 
become  untrustworthy;  and  that  therefore 
when  we  find  four  books  of  prophecy  in  the 
Hebrew  canon — namely,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  the  book  of  the  twelve  proph- 
ets— we  dare  not  safely  assume  that  all  the 
prophecies  which  lie  between  a  name  and  the 
name  following  are  the  product  of  the  pen  of 
the  first.  If  differences  of  style,  matter,  his- 
torical groundwork,  and  the  like,  show  them- 
selves in  any  considerable  degree,  the  evidence 
of  different  authorship  from  these  sources  is 
stronger  than  that  of  a  single  authorship  from 
their  place  in  the  canon.  To  put  it  in  plain 
words,  those  who  formed  the  canon  did  the 
best  they  knew,  but  their  knowledge  of  the 
authors  was  no  better  than  ours;  while  the 
fact  that  they  followed  tradition  without  crit- 
ical scrutiny  renders  their  conclusions  less 
trustworthy  than  those  of  the  well-equipped 
critic  of  our  day. 


THk  BOOK  OF  JONAH.  85 

§  14.  The  Book  of  Jonah. ^ 

That  this  book  is  the  work  of  Jonah,  the 
son  of  Amittai  (2  Kings  xiv,  25),  is  universally 
denied  by  the  critics.  It  is  generally  believed 
to  have  been  composed  during  or  subsequent 
to  the  Exile,  this  opinion  being  based  chiefly 
upon  the  language  used.  It  is  pointed  out 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  book  to  suggest 
Jonah  as  its  author,  but  that  Nineveh  being 
spoken  of  in  the  past  tense  (chapter  iii,  3),  in- 
dicates a  composition  long  after  the  time  of 
the  events  described.  Some  have  supposed 
that  the  whole  story  is  a  pure  fiction,  perhaps 
in  imitation  of  a  heathen  myth ;  but  perhaps 
the  majority  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  author 
at  least  employed  an  old  tradition  of  a  mission 
of  Jonah  to  Nineveh,  during  which  he  expe- 
rienced some  unusual  adventures.  The  ra- 
tionalists explained  the  miracle  of  the  fish  as 
a  dream,  or  took  the  fish  for  the  sign  of  some 
ship  which  picked  Jonah  up,  and  after  three 
days  set  him  upon  dry  land.  The  modern 
critic  either  regards    it  as  a  pure   fiction,   or 

^  See  works  referred  to  under  Joel. 


86  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

allows  more  or  less  of  historical  reality  in  the 
story.  All  are  agreed  that  it  is  not  prophecy, 
a  conclusion  which  a  moment's  thought  will 
support;  and  all  are  agreed  that  the  book  has 
for  its  object  something  outside  of  the  'mere 
relation  of  the  events  described.  As  to  what 
that  object  is,  opinions  differ.  There  are  those 
who  think  it  intended  to  justify  God  in  send- 
ing his  prophets  with  predictions  against  the 
heathen  which  were  subsequently  unfulfilled. 
Others  think  the  book  a  lesson  to  the  proph- 
ets, who  are  thereby  instructed  in  their  office, 
the  nature  of  prophecy,  and  the  conditions  of 
fulfillment.  But  the  most  generally  accepted 
view  is,  that  it  is  intended  to  teach  God's  care 
of  the  heathen,  and  to  rebuke  the  Jews  for 
their  narrowness  and  bigotry. 

§  15.  The  Book  of  Daniel.' 

The  traditional  view  of  the  date  and 
authorship  of  Daniel,  though  still  represented 
by  some  eminent  names  among  the  critics,  is 
yielded  by  the  vast  majority,  and  for  the  fol- 


^  See  Zockler's  Handbucli  der  Theologischen  Wissen- 
scliafteu  and  Meinhold  in  Kurzgefasstes  Kommentar. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL.  87 

lowing  reasons:  i.  The  place  of  the  book  in  the 
Hebrew  canon.  The  second  part  of  this  canon 
contained  the  prophets ;  but  Daniel  is  not 
placed  among  them.  On  the  contrary,  he  is 
placed  among  the  books  of  the  third  collec- 
tion, which  was  formed  at  a  late  period.  2. 
Daniel  is  not  mentioned  in  the  list  of  prophetic 
writings  given  by  Jesus ^  the  son  of  Sirach^ 
who,  writing  about  the  year  200  B.  C,  men- 
tions, in  his  chapters  xliv-1,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  the  twelve  minor  prophets, 
but  not  Daniel.  3.  Linguistic  considerations. 
Chapters  ii,  4'-vii  are  written  in  Aramaic, 
which  was  hardly  known  to  the  Jews  earlier 
than  the  Persian  period.  Furthermore,  the 
style  of  this  portion  is  the  Aramaic  of  Pales- 
tine, not  of  Babylon — a  fact  which  points  to 
the  composition  in  Palestine,  and,  hence, 
after  the  Babylonian  Exile.  Besides,  the  name 
given  to  the  wise  men  (D'^.ti'3)  points  to  a  period 
when,  the  Chaldean  kingdom  having  been  de- 
stroyed, only  the  magi  remained,  to  whom 
was  applied  the  title  belonging  to  the  whole 
nation.  Especially  weighty  is  the  evidence 
from  the  fact  that  Persian  words  are  placed 


88  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

in  the  mouth  even  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  which 
could  only  be  done  by  an  author  who  had  en- 
tirely forgotten  their  Persian  origin.  The 
late  origin  of  the  book  is  also  deduced  from 
the  Greek  names  of  musical  instruments, 
which  could  only  have  been  learned  after  the 
invasion  of  the  Bast  by  Alexander  the  Great. 
Linguistic  considerations  also  prevail  in  those 
parts  which  are  written  in  Hebrew,  comprising 
chapters  i,  viii-xii,  the  unskillful  handling  of 
the  language  indicating  that  it  was,  at  the 
time  of  the  writing,  either  dead  or  dying. 
4.  Arguments  draivn  from  the  contents  of  the 
book.  Chapter  ix,  i,  presupposes  a  collection 
of  sacred  Scriptures  which  included  Jeremiah ; 
but  such  a  collection  could  hardly  have  been 
in  use  in  the  time  of  the  Exile.  Then  the 
mention  of  the  names  and  orders  of  angels, 
and  the  reference  to  national  guardian  angels 
(x,  13,  20;  xi,  i;  xii,  i),  indicates  a  develop- 
ment of  angelology  not  probable  in  the  time 
of  the  Exile,  but  suitable  for  the  Maccabsean 
period.  Further,  the  other  prophets  made  the 
end  of  the  Babylonian  exile  and  the  beginning 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom  identical,  while  in 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL.  89 

Daniel  the  redemption  of  Israel  is  placed  in 
the  distant  future.  Besides,  the  author  seems 
to  have  no  message  for  the  people  of  his  own 
times — as  prophets  usually  did — on  the  suppo- 
sition that  he  lived  in  the  period  of  the  Exile ; 
but  if  he  be  supposed  to  have  written  in  the  age 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  then  his  minute  de- 
scription of  events  down  to  that  age,  and  the 
indistinctness  subsequent  thereto,  are  easily 
accounted  for. 

As  to  attributing  the  book  to  Daniel,  the 
author  simply  did  what  was  common  in  his 
time.  Those  who  did  it  had  no  tliought  of 
forgery,  as  we  understand  it.  Besides,  he  was 
not  writing  a  canonical  book.  Nevertheless, 
the  Jews  did  well  to  receive  it  into  the  canon, 
since  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  it  was  a 
source  of  great  religious  stimulus.  The  book 
is  supposed  to  rest  upon  old  traditions  con- 
cerning Daniel,  and  perhaps  to  have  been 
written,  in  part,  not  earlier  than  B.  C.  300. 
The  purpose  of  this  Aramaic  document  was 
to  strengthen  the  courage  of  the  Jews  in  per- 
secution by  the  example  of  Daniel.  This  was 
wrought  into  the  later  Maccabsean  document, 


90  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  object  of  the  whole  also  being  encourage- 
ment to  faithfulness  in  trial. 

§l6.    ThK  PSAI.MSJ 

For  convenience,  we  give  here  the  divisions 
of  the  five  books  of  the  Psalter.  The  first 
book  contains  Psalms  i-xli;  the  second, 
xlii-lxxii ;  the  third,  Ixxiii-lxxxix  ;  the  fourth, 
xc-cvi ;  the  fifth,  cvii-cl.  It  has  been  sup- 
posed that  this  division  was  made  to  corre- 
spond to  the  five  books  of  the  Law;  but,  as 
we  shall  see,  it  had  another  origin. 

Psalms  are  attributed  by  the  superscrip- 
tions attached  to  them  to  David,  Moses,  Solo- 
man,  Asaph,  Heman,  Ethan,  and  the  sons  of 
Korah.  The  value  to  be  attached  to  these 
superscriptions  is  in  dispute.  Most  critics 
unhesitatingly  pronounce  it  impossible  that 
David  should  have  written  all  the  Psalms  as- 
cribed to  him  in  the  Psalter.  They  claim 
that,  in  many  cases,  the  language  employed 
decides ;  in  other  cases,  the   historical   condi- 


^  Hupfeld,  Die  Psalmen ;  aud  T.  K.  Cheyiie,  The  Psalms ; 
also  Driver,  Introduction;  and  H,  P.  Smith,  in  Biblical 
Scholarship,  etc. 


THE  PSALMS.  9 1 

tions  revealed  are  such  as  do  not  suit  the 
times  ill  which  David  lived.  But  if  some  of 
these  superscriptions  are  thus  proved  unwor- 
thy of  credence,  we  have  no  assurance,  with- 
out special  examination  in  each  case,  that 
any  of  the  others  are  trustworthy.  It  is 
asserted  that  the  LXX  treated  these  super- 
scriptions with  a  freedom  which  indicated 
that  they  did  not  regard  them  as  fixed  ;  that 
those  who  attached  them  were  probably  not 
the  authors  themselves,  but  later  editors ; 
that  in  so  doing  they  did  not,  in  all  cases, 
mean  to  designate  the  author,  but  rather  to 
indicate  that  they  were  taken  from  collections 
in  possession  of  those  who  claimed  descent 
from  David,  or  Asaph,  or  some  other.  Thus, 
while  the  compiler  only  meant  to  place  at  the 
head  of  each  Psalm  a  reminder  of  the  source 
from  which  he  had  taken  it,  the  later  genera- 
tions understood  it  to  mean  that  it  was  com- 
posed by  the  one  wdiose  name  it  bore. 

The  followers  of  the  extreme  Pentateuchal 
criticism  deny  the  Davidic  origin  of  almost 
every  Psalm  ascribed  to  him,  and  make  the 
Psalms    the   products   of    the   late   post-exilic 


9^  TH^  HIGHEk  CklTICISM. 

period,  some  even  dating  the  larger  part  of 
the  Psalter  in  the  Maccabsean  period.  They 
point  to  the  fact  that  in  the  earlier  books  of 
the  canon — as  Samuel  and  Kings — David  is 
represented  as  a  player,  but  not  as  a  composer. 
They  emphasize  the  frequency  of  the  supposed 
antithesis  in  the  Psalms  between  the  godly 
and  the  godless,  and  affirm  that  such  an  antag- 
onism was  never  distinctly  marked  until  the 
beginning  of  the  persecution  under  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  when  the  true  servants  of  God  had 
to  struggle  against  their  heathen  oppressors 
and  their  apostate  brethren. 

But  a  more  conservative  criticism,  while 
not  denying  the  late  origin  of  some  of  the 
Psalms,  arranges  the  order  somewhat  as  fol- 
lows:  I.  A  collection  of  Davidic  Psalms,  be- 
ginning with  Psalm  iii,  and  distinguished  by 
the  prevailing  use  of  the  name  Jehovah  (or 
Jahveh)  for  God.  2.  A  collection  of  Psalms 
of  Korah,  in  which  the  name  Elohim  is 
used  for  God.  (Psalms  xlii-xlix.)  3.  These 
were  united  by  an  editor  who  added  an  Elo- 
him Psalm  of  Asaph  (the  fiftieth),  a  number 
of    Elohim    Psalms    by   David    (li-lxxi),    and 


THE  PSALMS.  93 

then  the  Solomonic  Psalm  Ixxii.  He  also 
prefixed  an  ancient  Messianic  Psalm  (onr 
second  Psalm),  and  possibly  composed  Psalm  i 
as  an  introduction  to  all.  If  so,  he  must 
have  written  prior  to  Jeremiah,  to  whom 
Psalm  i  was  known.  4.  The  third  book, 
judging  from  Psalms  Ixxiv  and  Ixxix,  may 
have  come  into  existence  subsequent  to  the 
Babylonian  exile  ;  and  the  collector  of  these 
Psalms  was  not  identical  with  the  editor 
who  united  the  first  two  books.  5.  The 
work  of  still  another  collector  begins  with 
the  fourth  book,  which  contains  but  two 
Psalms  (ci  and  ciii)  with  the  names  of  the 
authors  attached,  both  of  which  the  Hebrew 
canon  attributes  to  David.  6.  The  fifth  book 
is  from  still  another  collector.  It  contains  fif- 
teen Davidic  Psalms  and  one  Solomonic  Psalm. 
This  collector  is  supposed  to  be  also  the  final 
editor,  having  supplied  the  doxologies  which 
mark  the  close  of  each  of  the  first  four  books 
of  the  Psalter.  Those  who  deny  the  Macca- 
bsean  date  of  any  of  the  Psalms  think  the 
final  editor  lived  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah. 


94  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM, 

While  the  critics  deny  the  binding  force  of 
the  titles  which  profess  to  give  either  the 
liturgical  or  historical  occasion  of  the  compo- 
sition or  the  names  of  the  authors  of  the 
Psalms,  yet  the  more  conservative  are  dis- 
posed to  defend  those  who  attached  these 
titles  from  the  charge  of  arbitrary  guesswork, 
and  to  believe  that  they  represent  very  old 
tradition.  As  to  the  authorship  of  seventy- 
three  Psalms  ascribed  to  David  in  our  Psalter, 
Hitzig,  who  thinks  most  of  the  Psalms  were 
composed  in  the  period  of  the  Maccabees,  al- 
lows that  David  wrote  fourteen.  Bwald  only 
gives  him  eleven  entire  Psalms,  and  some 
parts  of  four  others  (xix,  2-7;  Ix,  8-1 1 ;  Ixviii, 
14-19;  cxliv,  12-14).  Delitzsch  thinks  forty- 
four  are  Davidic,  and  holds  that  Psalms  Ixxiv 
and  Ixxix  are  from  the  time  of  the  Maccabees; 
possibly  also  Psalm  cxxiii. 

As  to  the  value  of  the  Psalms,  the  critics 
generally  agree  that  few  are  truly  prophetic; 
even  conservatives  limiting  the  Messianic 
Psalms  to  the  second  and  the  one  hundred 
and  tenth,  while  Psalms  xxii,  xlv,  Ixix,  Ixxii, 
may  be  regarded  as  typical-prophetical.    Some 


THE  PSALMS.  95 

few  others  are  classed  as  merely  typical,  as 
xli,  10.  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  gave  the 
rule  for  conduct;  the  Psalms  give  the  experi- 
ences of  those  who  endeavored  to  conform 
themselves  to  the  standard  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  Psalms  do  not,  according  to  the 
critics,  give  us  a  standard  by  which  we  may 
regulate  our  experiences.  They  must  each 
be  judged  by  their  approach  to  the  spirit  of 
Christ.  The  Psalms  exhibit,  not  what  a  Chris- 
tian should  be,  but  what  piety  was  in  the  light 
of  the  revelation  granted  in  pre-Christian 
times.  It  is  assumed  that  as  the  revelation 
was  not  so  pure  and  complete,  the  religious 
life  could  not  be  so  exalted  as  under  the  Gos- 
pel dispensation.  This  denies  the  distinctive 
inspiration  of  the  thoughts  and  feelings  ex- 
pressed in  the  Psalms,  and  makes  them  the 
portrayal  of  the  religious  consciousness  of 
those  who  were  trained  under  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets. 


96  the  higher  criticism. 

§17.  The  Book  of  Proverbs. 
Strack^  divides  the  book  into  nine  parts: 
I.  Superscription  (i,  1-6)  and  Motto  (v.  7). 
II.   Introductions  (i,  8-ix). 

III.  First  collection  of  Solomonic  proverbs, 

designated  S  I  (x-xxii,  16). 

IV.  First  appendix  (xxii,  17-xxiv,  22),  Words 

of  the  Wise. 
V.  Second    appendix    (xxiv,    23-34),    also 

Words  of  the  Wise. 
VI.  Second  collection  of  Solomonic  proverbs, 
designated  S  II  (xxv-xxix). 
VII.  First  supplement  (xxx),  Words  of  iVgur 

the  son  of  Jakeh. 
VIII.  Second  supplement  (xxxi,  1-9),  Words 
of  King  Lemuel. 
IX.  Third  supplement  (xxxi,  10-31),  Praise 
of  a  virtuous  woman. 

Of  all  these  parts  the  only  ones  generally 
recognized  as  Solomonic  are  III  and  VI.  It  is 
claimed  that  none  of  the  rest  professes  to 
have   been   written   by  the  wise  king.     That 


^In  Zockler's  Haudbuch  der  Theologischen  Wissen- 
schaften. 


THE  BOOK  OF  PROVERBS.  97 

there  are  many  expressions  in  I  and  II  which 
are  identical  with  those  in  III  is  admitted; 
but  this  is  explained  by  the  supposition  that 
the  author  of  the  former  was  the  collector  of 
III,  to  whose  style  of  thought  and  language 
he  conformed  himself  as  much  as  possible. 
Against  the  Solomonic  origin  of  I  and  II  it  is 
urged  that  they  contain  a  series  of  expressions 
not  found  in  III  nor  VI,  and,  indeed,  not  else- 
where in  the  Bible.  To  the  words  of  chapter 
i,  I,  the  collector  added  a  long  introduction, 
as  a  comparison  with  chapter  x,  i,  shows. 
Delitzsch  and  Kuenen  have  both  shown  that 
there  is  a  relationship  between  I  and  II  and 
Deuteronomy.  Attention  is  also  called  to  the 
fact  that  there  is  a  dependence  between  Job 
and  I,  II,  and  III.  Some,  however,  think  that 
the  collector  of  I,  II,  and  III  used  Job,  rather 
than  the  reverse. 

That  Solomon  wrote  proverbs  is  settled  by 
I  Kings  V,  9-13.  In  III  and  VI  are  found  five 
hundred  of  his  three  thousand  proverbs.  The 
Solomonic  authorship  of  III  is  proved  by  chap- 
ter X,  I,  in  connection  with  chapter  i,  i,  and 
by  XXV,  I,  on  the  supposition  that  the  men  of 


98  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Hezekiah  there  mentioned  knew  III.  All  the 
proverbs  of  III  are  composed  of  two  lines,  the 
form  supposed  to  be  earliest  in  use  for  pro- 
verbial writing.  Yet  III  did  not  come  from 
Solomon  in  its  present  form;  for  the  proverbs 
it  contains  are  not  arranged  according  to  any 
consistently  applied  principle,  but  seem  in 
most  cases  to  follow  each  other  as  accident 
happened.  Hence  it  is  presumed  that  III 
must  have  gradually  grown  up,  partly  from 
the  noting  down  of  the  proverbs  as  remem- 
bered by  the  people,  and  partly  from  written 
sources.  Furthermore,  each  verse  of  III  is  an 
independent  proverb,  which  is  not  the  case 
with  VI.  This  leads  to  the  supposition  that 
some  one,  whose  literary  tastes  were  less  va- 
ried than  Solomon's,  collected  III.  In  addi- 
tion, the  repetitions  of  word  and  thought  are 
so  numerous  in  III  as  to  forbid  the  supposi- 
tion that  Solomon  himself  made  the  collec- 
tion. He  might  often  have  repeated  himself 
in  three  thousand  proverbs,  but  he  would 
hardly  have  done  so  in  a  collection  of  the 
three  hundred  and  seventy-five  in  III.  It  is 
also  supposed  that  in  III  there  are  some  post- 


THE  BOOK  OF  PROVERBS.  99 

Solomonic  proverbs,  the  principal  proof  being 
founded  on  a  comparison  of  the  Hebrew  and 
IvXX  text.  Various  dates  are  given  for  the 
collection  of  III,  but  it  is  generally  agreed  to 
have  been  during  the  period  of  the  early 
kings. 

The  Solomonic  origin  of  the  proverbs  of 
VI  has  been  disputed  by  Ewald  on  the  ground 
that  the  earliest  form  of  Hebrew  verse  was 
composed  of  two  lines,  and  the  attempt  to 
make  it  appear  that  Solomon  wrote  only  an- 
tithetical proverbs  in  this  form.  This  is  an- 
swered by  the  fact  that  we  can  not  suppose 
Solomon  to  have  been  mentally  so  poor  as 
only  to  write  in  one  style.  It  must  be  ad- 
mitted, however,  that  VI  is  very  different  from 
III  in  several  respects.  The  form  of  the 
verses  is  different;  the  parabolic  (emblematic) 
manner  of  expression  is  frequently  found  here, 
and  only  twice  in  III;  while  in  VI  the  dark 
side  of  the  monarchy  is  emphasized  in  con- 
trast with  III,  which  sees  only  its  bright  side. 
But  all  this  is  explicable  on  the  supposition 
that  we  have  in  VI  more  post-Solomonic  prov- 
erbs.     According    to    xxv,    i,   a    commission 


lOO  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

formed  by  Hezekiah  copied  VI.  An  attempt 
has  been  made  to  show  by  the  repetitions  in 
VI  of  proverbs  in  III  that  the  men  of  Heze- 
kiah did  not  know  III;  but  these  repetitions 
are  so  few  in  number  as  to  make  the  suppo- 
sition necessary  that  they  knew  it,  and  knew 
that  it  was  widely  employed,  or  else  they 
would  have  repeated  far  more  than  they  did. 

As  to  IV,  its  non-Solomonic  origin  is  sup- 
posed to  be  proved  by  chapter  xxii,  17,  which 
seems  to  attribute  what  follows  to  a  variety  of 
wise  men.  Delitzsch  supposed  it  to  have 
sprung  from  the  author  of  I  and  II  and  col- 
lector of  III.  Others  think  that  this  collector 
found  IV  ready  prepared,  and  joined  it  to  his 
I,  II,  and  III.  The  first  verse  of  V  is  supposed 
to  show  that  it  is  from  another  collector. 
The  similarity  of  its  beginning  with  that  of 
XXV,  i,  is  evidence  that  it  was  placed  here  by 
the  one  who  united  I,  II,  III,  IV,  and  VI5  his 
purpose  being  to  prevent  the  proverbs  it  con- 
tained from  being  lost. 

The  author  of  II  is  presumed  to  be  the 
same  as  the  author  of  I.  We  still  have  to 
deal  with  VII,  VIII,  and  IX.    Neither  Agur  nor 


THE  BOOK  OF  JOB.  lOI 

Jakeh  are  known  outside  of  VII;  but  they 
must  have  been  Israelites,  since  verse  5  is  de- 
pendent upon  the  Davidic  Psahn  xviii,  31,  and 
verse  6  upon  Deuteronomy  iv,  2;  xiii,  i. 
Verses  1-4  emphasize  the  insufficiency  of  hu- 
man knowledge,  which  had  been  done  long 
before.  The  author  is  supposed  to  have  lived 
subsequently  to  Hezekiah.  As  to  VIII,  it  was 
certainly  written  outside  Palestine,  if  the 
translation  of  the  superscription  proposed  by 
Hitzig  and  maintained  by  Delitzsch  and 
others  shall  finally  prevail,  making  lyemuel 
king  of  Massa.  It  is  yet  in  dispute.  The 
third  supplement  (IX)  is  in  the  form  of  an 
alphabetic  song.  It  presupposes  a  carefully 
ordered  civil  state,  flourishing  trade  relations, 
and  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  as  a  principal 
occupation.  It  was  probably  written  in  the 
time  of  Hezekiah.  In  order  to  bring  all  these 
parts  together,  one  final  editor  must  be  as- 
sumed. 

§  18.  The  Book  of  Job.' 

Among  the  critical  conclusions  reached  by 
some  is  the  idea  that  the  book  is  intended  to 

^  Volck,  Das  Buch  Hiob,  in  Kurzgefasstes  Kommeiitar. 


I02  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

describe  the  sufferings  of  the  Israelitish  people 
during  the  Babylonian  exile.  To  this  it  is 
answered  that,  if  for  no  other  reason,  this 
opinion  must  be  rejected,  because  Job  (the 
Israelites,  on  this  supposition)  denies  all  guilt 
or  self-censure  in  connection  with  his  suffer- 
ing. He  is,  in  his  own  estimation  and  in  that 
of  God,  an  innocent  sufferer;  but  Israel,  in 
the  Exile,  suffered  because  of  its  sins. 

The  great  majority  of  critics  hold  to  the 
belief  that  the  author  had  for  the  basis  of  his 
work  a  tradition  which  more  or  less  completely 
corresponded  to  reality.  It  is,  of  course, 
impossible  to  tell  how  closely  the  author  ad- 
hered to  this  tradition ; '  but  it  is  almost  uni- 
versally conceded  that  the  book  is  not  a  pure 
fiction.  His  long  life  (one  hundred  and  forty 
years  subsequent  to  his  great  affliction) ;  the 
mention  of  coins  known  to  us  from  the  history 
of  Jacob  and  Joshua  (Gen.  xxxiii,  19  ;  Josh, 
xxiv,  32)  in  chapter  xlii,  11  ;  the  fact  that  the 
only  musical  instruments  mentioned  are  those 
mentioned  in  Genesis,  indicates  that  Job  lived 
in  the  early  patriarchal  time ;  but  his  peculiar 
use  of  names  to  designate  the  Deity  shows 


THE  BOOK  OF  JOB.  1 03 

that  he  lived   and   moved  outside  the  Israel- 
itish  fold. 

The  principal  part  which  has  been  re- 
garded as  spurious  is  the  chapters  xxxii- 
xxxvii,  containing  the  speeches  of  Elihu. 
The  reasons  for  regarding  them  as  the  work 
of  a  later  hand  are:  i.  That  they  seem  not 
to  fit  into  the  general  plan  of  the  poem. 
Klihu  is  not  mentioned  in  the  prologue  among 
those  present.  Also  in  the  epilogue,  when 
God  expresses  his  judgment  of  what  has  been 
said,  Elihu  is  not  mentioned  ;  nor  is  any 
reference  found  in  any  part  of  the  book  to 
what  Elihu  has  here  said.  The  passage  can 
be  removed  bodily,  and  never  be  missed  in 
the  argument.  2.  On  the  other  hand,  the  pas- 
sage disturbs  the  unity  of  the  whole.  It  says 
beforehand  some  things  found  in  Jehovah's  ad- 
dress, and  repeats  much  said  by  the  friends. 
When  God  speaks  in  chapter  xxxviii,  he  as- 
sumes that  Job  has  just  finished,  so  that  the 
passage  in  question  destroys  the  connection 
between  chapters  xxxi  and  xxxviii.  3.  It 
differs  in  language  from  the  other  portions  of 
the  book.     4,   Elihu  introduces  himself,  which 


I04  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

excites  our  suspicion,  while  the  subscript  fol- 
lowing xxxi,  40,  makes  the  section  evidently 
an  addition. 

Both  the  prologue  (chapters  i  and  ii)  and 
the  epilogue  (chapter  xlii,  7  fi.)  have  been  at- 
tacked; but  the  majority  regard  them  as  nec- 
essary to  the  poem,  and  to  its  understanding 
by  the  reader.  Opinions  are  divided  concern- 
ing the  genuineness  of  chapters  xl,  15-xli,  26. 
It  is  attacked  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
in  bad  taste.  Studer  (in  Jahrb.  fiir  prot. 
Theol.,  1875)  tried  to  prove  that  the  original 
Job  is  found  in  chapters  xxix;  xxx;  iii,  3-xxvii, 
7;  xxxi;  and  that  it  was  subsequently  edited 
and  reconstructed  five  different  times.  This 
view  has  now  no  followers. 

The  book  has  been  attributed  to  Moses, 
Solomon,  Baruch,  and  Job ;  but  there  is  noth- 
ing except  supposition  in  favor  of  any  name. 
That  it  was  written  by  Moses  is  now  almost 
universally  disputed,  because  it  evidently  was 
written  later  than  his  period.  All  that  is 
known  of  the  development  of  Hebrew  litera- 
ture speaks  against  so  early  a  date.  The 
mistake  arose  from  the  confusing  of  the  poet 


THE  BOOK  OF  JOB.  105 

with  the  hero  of  the  poem,  the  time  described 
with  the  period  in  which  the  author  lived. 
On  the  other  hand,  but  few  now  place  the 
book  so  late  as  the  exilian  period.  This  view 
was  defended  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  the 
Satanology  of  the  book  is  too  developed  for 
an  earlier  period ;  but  most  critics  think  there 
is  no  connection  between  the  Satan  of  the 
Book  of  Job  and  the  Parsee  doctrine  of  angels. 
In  favor  of  the  Solomonic  period,  it  has  been 
urged  that  the  book  displays  a  remarkable 
fullness  of  knowledge  of  nature  suitable  to 
that  period  ;  also  that  Proverbs  i-ix  seems  to 
be  dependent  upon  Job.  Besides,  it  has  been 
said  that  such  a  book  as  Job,  so  full  of  reflec- 
tion and  so  carefully  planned,  must  belong  to 
the  period  of  highest  literary  culture.  But 
unless  Proverbs  i-ix  was  written  at  least  in 
the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  there  is  no  proof  from 
the  literary  connection  between  Proverbs  and 
Job ;  besides,  the  period  of  high  literary  activ- 
ity was  not  confined  to  the  time  of  David  and 
Solomon. 

Since   Jeremiah  xx   shows    that  Jeremiah 
had  Job   iii   before   him  when  he  wrote,  it  is 


Io6  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

plain  that  Job  was  not  written  later  than  Jere- 
miah. From  Job  xii,  14-25,  where  the  refer- 
ence is  to  a  captivity  of  a  nation,  it  may  be 
presumed  that  there  is  an  example  first  in 
the  Assyrian  period,  and,  hence,  that  the  book 
may  have  been  written  about  700  B.  C. 
This  is  perhaps  the  most  generally  accepted 
date. 

The  date  of  the  interpolation  of  chapters 
xxxii-xxxvii  can  not  be  fixed. 

§19.   ECCI^ESIASTES.^ 

While  some  see  in  this  book  a  dialogue 
between  two  persons  of  different  opinions 
concerning  the  subject  in  hand,  others  see  in 
it  only  a  succession  of  contradictory  thoughts 
held  together  by  the  constantly  recurring  idea 
that  all  is  vanity.  Some  have  thought  that 
the  book  fell  into  two  parts,  a  theoretical  and 
a  practical — the  former  including  chapters 
i-iv,  16;  the  latter,  chapters  iv,  17-xii,  7. 
But  while  these  sections  bear  respectively  the 
general  character  thus  assigned  them,  yet  the 

^  Volck,  Der  Prediger  Salomo,  in  Kurzgefasstes  Koni- 
meutar. 


ECCLESIASTES.  1 07 

theoretical  and  the  practical  are  well  repre- 
sented in  both  parts.  Perhaps  the  most  satis- 
factory view  is,  that  it  is  not  a  systematic 
presentation  of  the  theme,  but  that  the  author 
simply  utters  the  feelings  of  his  heart  as  they 
come  to  him,  thus  speaking  from  his  very 
soul. 

Some  have  found  in  the  book  a  philosoph- 
ical tendency — a  search  after  the  highest  good, 
or  for  that  which  is  permanent  in  the  midst 
of  the  evanescent  and  changeful.  Some  have 
thought  they  saw  a  dependence  of  the  author 
upon  the  Epicurean  and  Stoic  philosophy. 
Others  have  thought  the  book  skeptical  in 
tendency,  while  the  school  of  Schopenhauer 
have  found  their  pessimism  in  its  first  four 
chapters.  Still  others  find  the  book  written 
with  a  practical  religious  purpose.  This  is 
perhaps  the  most  satisfactory  opinion. 

The  idea  that  it  was  written  by  Solomon 
is  almost  wholly  abandoned  by  recent  critics. 
The  language  of  the  book  is  regarded  as  pos- 
itive evidence  of  very  late  composition;  but 
when  the  attempt  to  fix  the  exact  period  of  its 
composition   is    made,  opinions    divide.      All 


Io8  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

agree  that  it  is  post-exilian.  But  it  is  held 
that  while  the  language  of  Malachi  is  still  a 
pure  Hebrew,  that  of  Ecclesiastes  shows  dis- 
tinct traces  of  the  Aramaic  and  of  the  idioms- 
of  the  Mishna.  So  that  the  book  must  be 
later  than  the  time  of  Malachi.  The  author 
speaks  of  the  power,  the  caprice,  and  the  vo- 
luptuousness of  the  rulers.  This  corresponds 
to  the  later  period  of  the  Persian  rule.  Some 
have  thought  that  the  book  was  written  in 
Alexandria;  but  others  objeqt  to  this  that 
chapters  xi,  3  f.,  and  xii,  2,  presuppose  a  coun- 
try in  w^hich  the  rain  frequently  falls,  and  in 
which  the  fruitfulness  of  the  earth  is  depend- 
ent upon  the  rain,  which  is  not  the  case  with 
Egypt.  On  the  other  hand,  chapter  i,  7,  does 
not  conflict  with  the  idea  of  its  Palestinian 
origin;  while  v,  i,  implies  the  presence  of  the 
temple,  and  viii,  10,  the  existence  of  holy 
places,  and  x,  15,  nearness  at  least  to  the  city 
of  Jerusalem.  Formerly  it  was  customary  to 
dispute  both  the  unity  and  integrity  of  the 
book;  but  both  are  now  generally  recognized. 
Only  a  few  small  portions  are  in  doubt;  viz., 
the   epilogue  (xii,    9-14);   xi,  9'';    xii,  i";  and 


ECCLESIASTES.  109 

xii,  7.  Concerning  the  epilogne  it  is  declared 
that  it  is  superfluous  and  without  object;  that 
while  in  the  other  portions  of  the  book  the 
author  speaks  in  the  first  person,  here  the 
third  person  is  employed;  that  here  he  repre- 
sents piety  and  the  fear  of  God  as  the  goal  of 
all  true  endeavor,  in  contradiction  to  the  pre- 
vious recommendation  of  enjoyment  as  the 
highest  good ;  that  the  representation  of  a  last 
judgment  in  verse  14  contradicts  the  former 
denial  of  immortality;  and  that  it  was  not 
true  in  the  time  of  the  Persian  epoch,  when 
the  book  is  supposed  to  have  been  written, 
that  it  was  a  book-making  period.  To  all 
this  the  defenders  of  xii,  9-14,  reply  that  there 
is  no  ground  for  the  last  assertion ;  and  that, 
properly  understood,  the  contradictions  urged 
disappear. 

Let  it  be  observed  that,  while  almost  all 
deny  the  authorship  to  Solomon,  it  is  agreed 
that  the  real  author  attributes  it  to  the  wise 
king. 


no  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

§20.  The  Song  of  Solomon.^ 

Two  views  concerning  the  unity  of  this 
book  obtain  to  the  present  day.  According  to 
the  first,  it  is  not  a  unit,  but  a  series  of  love- 
songs,  strung  loosely  together.  Reuss  held 
this  view,  except  that  the  sixteen  different 
pieces — of  which,  according  to  him,  it  is  com- 
posed— all  related  to  the  same  circumstances. 
The  other  view,  which  is  now  the  prevailing 
one,  is,  that  it  is  a  unit,  although  opinions 
differ  widely  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
parts  are  related  to  each  other.  The  majority 
regard  it  as  a  melodrama.  The  difficulty  of 
finding  any  single  connecting  thread  has  been 
the  chief  support  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  a 
medley  rather  than  a  united  whole.  The 
argument  of  the  Song  is  thus  given  by  Oettli, 
who  divides  the  whole  into  fifteen  scenes: 
As  the  Shulamite,  the  daugher  of  well-to-do 
country  people  of  Shunem,  upon  a  spring  day, 
w^ent  into  her  garden,  her  beauty  was  observed 
by  the  occupants  of  a  royal  carriage- train, 
and   she  was   brought    into    a   royal    summer 

^  Oettli,  Das  Hohelied,  in  Kurzgefasstes  Kommentar, 


THE  SONG  OF  SOLOMON.  1 1 1 

villa,  not  far  from  her  home.  Here  she  was 
placed  under  the  care  of  the  women  of  the 
harem,  who  were  to  dispose  her  favorably 
toward  the  king.  In  secret,  however,  she 
loved  a  youth  of  her  native  place.  All  efforts 
of  the  king  to  win  her  affections  were  made 
vain  by  her  loyalty  to  her  peasant  lover ;  and 
at  length  the  king  himself  let  her  go  in  peace. 
Her  lover,  with  whom  she  had  meanwhile  held 
conversations,  led  her  home,  and  with  him  she 
entered  into  a  covenant  of  eternal  love. 

J.  G.  Stickel  holds  essentially  the  same 
view,  but  thinks  that  interwoven  with  the 
drama  of  Solomon  and  the  Shulamite  is  an- 
other pertaining  to  a  shepherd  and  shep- 
herdess, whose  scenes — three  in  number — are 
as  follows:  i,  7,  8 ;  i,  15-ii,  4;  iv,  7-v,  i.  He 
thinks  that  the  interweaving  of  this  drama 
heightens  the  interest  of  the  other  by  con- 
trast, and  designates  the  breaks  in  the  treat- 
ment of  the  principal  theme. 

Delitzsch  held  that  Solomon  and  the  sup- 
posed friend  of  the  Shulamite  were  identical. 
He  supposes  that  Solomon,  being  by  chance 
in   the   neighborhood    of  her   home,  had   his 


112  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

attention  called  to  her  beauty,  and  that  this 
Song  describes  the  progress  of  his  suit  up  to 
the  time  of  their  marriage.  The  principal  ob- 
jection urged  against  this  hypothesis  is  the 
improbability  that  Solomon,  the  delicate  and 
fastidious  king,  should  descend  to  the  manner 
of  life  of  a  peasant,  and  for  a  considerable 
period  of  time,  as  this  conception  of  the  Song 
requires. 

The  allegorical  interpretation  makes  Solo- 
mon and  the  Shulamite  the  representatives 
respectively  of  God  and  Israel,  or  Christ  and 
the  Church,  some  (Roman  Catholics)  making 
it  even  to  stand  for  the  relation  of  Christ  to 
the  individual  soul.  Of  any  such  interpreta- 
tion there  is  no  trace  in  the  New  Testament; 
and,  in  the  Church,  it  first  appeared  with 
Origen.  To  make  it  a  literal  description  of 
the  love  experiences  of  two  young  people  in 
early  centuries  seems  to  rob  it  of  its  right  to 
a  place  in  the  canon.  The  defenders  of  the 
literal  interpretation,  however,  say  that  such 
a  representation  of  faithfulness  in  love  is  not 
unworthy  of  a  place  in  the  religion  of  reve- 
lation. 


THE  SONG  OF  SOLOMON.  II3 

The  question  of  the  authorship  and  date  of 
the  book  is  closely  connected  with  the  opin- 
ion held  as  to  its  dramatis  personam.  Most  of 
those  who  believe  the  hero  and  heroine  to 
have  been  Solomon  and  the  Shulamite,  with- 
out the  interference  of  a  peasant  friend  of  the 
heroine,  hold  Solomon  to  be  the  author.  This 
they  maintain  on  the  ground  of  the  super- 
scription. The  opposers  of  this  view  regard 
this  superscription  as  untrustworthy,  and  think 
that,  since  its  supporters  interpret  v,  2-7,  as  a 
description  of  Solomon's  unfaithfulness  to  the 
one  he  had  just  won,  it  is  unlikely  that  Solo- 
mon wrote  the  book,  since  he  would  hardly 
have  celebrated  his  own  depravity  in  song. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  beloved  is  not 
Solomon,  but  the  shepherd,  then  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  Solomon  should  have  written  it.  He 
would  not  have  described  himself  as  sensual, 
nor  as  having  been  rejected  by  a  country  girl. 

Yet  the  testimony  is  in  favor  of  its  early 
composition.  Hosea,  in  the  eighth  century 
B.  C,  had  read  the  book.  (Compare  Hosea 
xiv,  6-9,  with  Song  ii,  i,  3;  iv,  11;  vi,  11.) 
The  mention  of  Tirzah  (vi,  4)  points  to  a  time 


114  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

when  that  city,  the  residence  of  Omri  (i  Kings 
xvi,  24),  was  still  standing.  The  memory  of 
the  Solomonic  period  seems  fresh  in  the  mind 
of  the  author ;  and  there  is  no  trace  of  na- 
tional misfortune.  This,  with  other  facts, 
speaks  strongly  in  favor  of  the  early  part  of 
the  tenth  century  B.  C.  These  considerations 
forbid  placing  the  drama  in  the  exilic  or  post- 
exilic  period,  as  some  have  done.  The  close- 
ness of  the  time  of  its  composition  to  the 
period  of  Solomon  also  forbids  that  it  should 
have  been  intended  for  pure  fiction.  It  is 
probably  founded  in  large  measure  on  fact. 
This  further  forbids  the  supposition  that  it 
was  written  to  rebuke  the  immorality  of  the 
court  in  x^lexandria  in  the  time  of  the  Mac- 
cabees. 

§21.  The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah.^ 

The  Lamentations  do  not  name  their  own 
author.  But  the  oldest  of  our  traditions  as- 
cribe them  to  Jeremiah ;  so,  the  LXX,  Targum, 
and  the  Talmud  (Baba  Bathra),  which  also 
makes  Jeremiah   the  author  of  Kings.     The 

^  Oeltli,  Die  Klagelieder,  in  Kurzgefasstes  Kommentar. 


THE  LAMENT  A  TIONS  OF  JEREMIAH.        1 1 5 

critics  of  to-day  are  divided  in  their  opinions. 
There  have  been  those  who  denied  the  unity 
of  authorship,  a  variety  of  authors  being 
suggested  by  the  fact  that  i  and  ii  mention 
the  deportation  of  the  Jews,  while  the  re- 
mainder only  speak  of  the  laying  waste  of 
Zion ;  that  the  alphabetical  order  followed  in 
the  main  by  the  first  four  is  given  up  in  the 
fifth  ;  and  by  the  inequality  of  merit  in  the 
five  poems.  The  majority,  however,  are  con- 
vinced that  all  are  the  product  of  one  author, 
since  the  style  and  the  circle  of  ideas  are  es- 
sentially the  same  throughout. 

Arguments  against  the  Jeremianic  author- 
ship, however,  are  brought  forward  in  large 
numbers.  The  style  is  supposed  to  be  differ- 
ent from  Jeremiah's  ;  the  alphabetical  arrange- 
ment followed  in  the  first  four  poems  is  nowhere 
found  in  the  prophecy ;  Jeremiah  xxxi,  29,  30, 
is  declared  to  be  in  contradiction  to  Lamenta- 
tions v,  7  ;  the  author  of  Lamentations  does 
not  remind  his  readers  of  his  prophecies,  as 
it  might  be  supposed  Jeremiah  would  have 
done. 

By  placing  the   writing   of   Lamentations 


Il6  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

subsequent  to  Bzekiel,  some  have  tried  to 
prove  that  it  was  not  written  by  Jeremiah. 
Chapter  ii,  14,  is  supposed  to  be  borrowed 
from  Bzekiel  xii,  24,  or  xiii,  6.  To  this  the 
defenders  of  Jeremiah  answer  that,  according 
to  Bzekiel  viii,  i,  we  must  suppose  that  chap- 
ters xii  and  xiii  were  written  in  the  sixth  year 
of  the  carrying  away  into  captivity  of  Jehoia- 
kim,  and  hence  five  years  prior  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  Since  Lamentations  be- 
moans the  destruction  of  the  city  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar and  his  successors,  Jeremiah  might 
have  seen  Bzekiel's  language  in  chapters  xii 
and  xiii. 

Very  conservative  German  critics  see  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  the  book  might  have 
been  written  by  another  than  Jeremiah,  and 
attributed  to  that  prophet  after  the  real 
authorship  had  been  forgotten;  but  such 
would  hardly  deny  that  it  is,  all  things  con- 
sidered, probable  that  the  book  was  written  by 
Jeremiah. 


the  book  of  ruth.  ii7 

§22.  The  Book  of  Ruth.^ 

The  object  of  this  book  is  evidently  to  re- 
late the  early  history  of  the  family  of  David. 
There  are  those  who  suppose,  however,  that  a 
correlated  purpose  was  to  show  that  God  had 
no  exclusive  interest  in  the  Jews,  and  that  he 
would  not  despise  to  have  a  Moabitess  among 
the  female  progenitors  of  the  line  from  which 
Christ  sprang. 

The  book  has  been  regarded  by  some  as 
pure  fiction.  The  principal  supports  for  such 
a  supposition  are:  i.  That  the  marriage  of 
Ruth  with  Boaz  transcends  the  law  requiring 
the  brother-in-law  to  marry  the  widow ; 
2.  That  if  the  Book  of  Judges  gives  us  a 
trustworthy  impression  of  the  period,  Ruth 
must  be  wholly  unhistorical ;  3.  The  fact  that 
the  names  employed  in  the  book  appear  to  be 
symbolical.  Those  who  defend  the  historical 
character  of  the  book  admit  the  possibility  of 
a  somewhat  artificial  dress  for  the  real  facts, 
but  deny  the  validity  of  any  of  the  arguments 
mentioned  above. 


^  Oettli,  Das  Biich  Ruth,  in  Kurzgefasstes  Kommeiitar. 


Il8  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Kwald  placed  the  date  of  composition  in 
the  exilian,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  von  Orelli, 
and  others,  in  the  post-exilian  period,  in  snp- 
port  of  which  they  offer  a  variety  of  reasons, 
particularly  those  drawn  from  the  language, 
which  is  full  of  Aramaisms.  But  none  of 
these  would  have  been  impossible,  it  is  re- 
plied, in  the  times  of  the  later  kings;  and, 
besides,  they  are  placed  by  the  author  in  the 
mouths  of  the  persons  speaking,  and  do  not 
occur  often  in  his  own  language,  thus  prov- 
ing that  they  are  employed  to  give  a  popular 
coloring  to  the  story.  The  probability  that 
Ruth  was  originally  not  connected  with 
Judges,  but  found  its  place  in  the  so-called 
third  canon— that  is,  latest  collection  of  Old 
Testament  books — has  also  been  used  to 
prove  the  late  (post-exilic)  origin  of  the  book; 
but  it  is  answered  that  this  would  not  prove 
its  non-existence  prior  to  its  reception  into 
the  canon. 

The  strongest  argument  for  its  composi- 
tion in  the  same  period  from  which  the  Books 
of  Samuel  sprang  is,  that  it  could  only  have 
been  produced  when  the  feelings  of  the  Jews 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER.  1 19 

were  yet  comparatively  liberal  toward  the 
Gentiles,  the  style  of  writing  still  simple,  and 
the  narrowness  of  the  post-exilian  Judaism 
was  yet  unknown. 

Chapter  iv,  18-22,  is  supposed  by  many  to 
be  a  later  addition,  made  in  the  early  Greek 
period,  and  taken  from  i  Chronicles  ii,  the 
object  being  to  carry  the  genealogy  of  David 
back  to  the  beginnings  of  the  people  of  Israel. 
It  has  been  observed  that  this  genealogy  can 
not  be  complete,  since  it  gives  but  ten  names 
for  the  period  of  eight  centuries. 

§23.  The  Book  of  Esther.' 

Much  in  this  book  has  led  to  the  belief 
that  it  is  at  most  a  fiction  founded  upon  fact, 
while  many  reject  its  historical  trustworthi- 
ness altogether.  Among  the  reasons  for  the 
latter  conclusion  are  the  following:  The  de- 
cree itself,  which  granted  the  right  absolutely 
to  lay  Judea  waste;  the  too  early  publica- 
tion of  the  same,  thus  making  it  possible  for 
the  condemned  to  escape;  the  sudden  turning 

^Das  Buch  Esther,  Oettli,  in  Kurzgefasstes  Koni- 
meutar. 


I20  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

of  the  king  in  favor  of  the  Jews;  the  im- 
mense number  of  Persian  subjects  put  to 
death  by  the  few  Jews,  and  that  with  the  con- 
nivance of  the  Persian  authorities;  the  ease 
with  which  the  time  was  extended  in  which 
the  Jews  could  take  revenge  on  the  Per- 
sians in  Susa;  the  immense  height  of  the  gal- 
lows ;  and  the  conversion  of  many  Persians  to 
Judaism. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  favor  the 
historicity  of  the  book  affirm  that  the  author 
had  a  most  exact  knowledge  of  the  Persians 
and  the  Persian  court;  that  the  portraiture 
of  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes)  agrees  with  what  He- 
rodotus says  of  him  in  his  seventh  and 
ninth  books  ;  that  it  was  not  uncommon  for 
whole  peoples  to  be  destroyed  by  their  ene- 
mies; that  the  Feast  of  Purim  among  the 
Jews  can  not  be  accounted  for  except  by 
some  incident  like  that  related  in  the  Book  of 
Esther. 

The  purpose  of  the  book  seems  to  be  to 
explain  how  the  Feast  of  Purim  came  into 
existence.  It  does  not  mention  the  name  of 
God,  which    fact   has   been   accounted  for  on 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER.  1 2 1 

the  ground  that  the  later  Jews  avoided  the 
use  of  the  name  of  God  except  in  the  temple 
worship.  Yet  it  recognizes  the  providence  of 
God,  although  the  zeal  of  the  characters  is  for 
the  people  rather  than  for  God.  It  is  full  of 
the  spirit  of  race  prejudice  and  of  revenge. 

Few  to-day  regard  Mordecai  as  the  author. 
The  believers  in  the  strict  historical  character 
of  the  book  think  it  was  written  near  the  time 
of  the  scenes  it  depicts.  Those  who  deny  it 
any  historical  value  place  it  late  in  the  time  of 
the  Seleucidse.  The  splendor  the  author  as- 
cribes to  the  rulership  of  Xerxes  would  seem 
to  point  to  a  period  considerably  later  than 
the  events. 

No  doubt  is  felt  as  to  the  unity  of  the  book, 
except  the  parts  ix,  20-28,  and  29-32.  It  is 
asserted  that  the  language  here  is  different 
from  the  other  portions ;  that  the  date  of  the 
feast  given  in  ix,  17-19,  contradicts  the  state- 
ments of  ix,  20-28;  and  that  ix,  32,  refers  to  a 
book  in  which  these  ''  matters  of  Purim  "  were 
written,  and  from  which  the  letters  in  question 
might  have  been  taken  by  the  author  himself, 
or  by  a  later  editor  who  inserted  them. 


122  the  higher  criticism. 

§  24.  The  Chronicles.^ 

It  is  agreed  that  the  two  books  were  origi- 
nally one,  and  the  division  is  supposed  to  have 
been  first  made  by  the  LXX.  Ezra  and  Ne- 
hemiah  are  also  believed  to  have  belonged 
originally  together.  The  last  verses  of  Chroni- 
cles are  identical  with  the  first  verses  of  Ezra ; 
and,  since  they  seem  to  be  necessary  to  Ezra, 
it  is  assumed  that  they  did  not  originally  be- 
long to  Chronicles,  but  were  placed  there  to 
indicate  that  Ezra-Nehemiah  is  the  contin- 
uation of  the  history  given  in  Chronicles. 
The  four  books  form  one  continuous  whole 
from  the  time  of  Adam  to  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century  before  Christ.  They  are  strik- 
ingly alike  in  language.  They  display  a  like 
interest  in  genealogical  tables  and  in  the  de- 
scription of  events  and  general  facts  pertain- 
ing to  worship.  Hence,  it  is  supposed  that 
they  were  compiled  by  the  same  author;  or 
else  that  they  had  a  common  editor;  or,  third, 
that    the    author    of    Ezra-Nehemiah    subse- 


'  Evans  and  Smith,  Biblical  Scholarship  and  Inspira- 
tion ;  Oettli,  Die  Biicher  der  Chronik. 


THE  CHRONICLES.  123 

quently  carried  his  historical  work  backward 
by  writing  Chronicles. 

One  of  the  points  in  dispnte  between  the 
critics  pertains  to  the  sources  from  which  the 
chronicler  drew  his  information.  It  is  agreed 
by  nearly  all  that  he  knew  and  employed  the 
canonical  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings ;  and 
those  who  deny  the  trustworthiness  of  Chroni- 
cles think  these  books  were  his  chief,  if  not  his 
only  source.  Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who 
believe  the  Chronicles  to  contain  reliable  his- 
torical data,  think  his  principal  source  to  be 
the  ''  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  and  Israel," 
so  often  referred  to  by  the  chronicler,  and 
which  evidently  contained  much  matter  not 
found  in  Samuel  and  Kings.  He  also  refers 
(i  Chron.  xxix,  29)  to  the  books  of  Samuel  the 
Seer,  of  Nathan  the  Prophet,  and  of  Gad  the 
Seer  ;  and,  in  2  Chron.  xii,  15,  to  the  books  of 
Shemaiah  the  Prophet,  and  of  Iddo  the  Seer ; 
also,  in  2  Chron.  xiii,  24,  to  the  story  (or  as  in 
margin,  commentary)  of  the  prophet  Iddo,  and 
(2  Chron,  xxiv,  27)  to  the  story  or  commentary 
of  the  Book  of  the  Kings.  The  general  suppo- 
sition is,  however,  that  the  prophetical  books 


124  ^^^  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

mentioned  were  parts  of  the  "Book  of  the 
Kings  of  Judah  and  Israel,"  while  the  stories 
or  commentaries  referred  to  also  formed  an- 
other source.  As  facts  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  date  of  composition,  Oettli  gives 
the  following:  i.  The  close  of  the  Chronicles 
indicates  a  post-exilian  date;  and  the  Aramaic 
preferences  of  the  language,  its  late  orthogra- 
phy, and  its  place  in  the  third  canon  subse- 
quent to  Ezra-Nehemiah,  point  to  its  compo- 
sition at  a  still  later  period.  2.  The  mention 
of  Cyrus  as  "  King  of  Persia  "  (2  Chron.  xxxvi, 
22  f.),  and  the  frequent  mention  of  his  succes- 
sors in  Ezra-Nehemiah  as  "  Kings  of  Persia," 
indicate  that  the  author  lived  in  the  Greek 
period.  3.  The  author  carries  the  line  of 
David  down  to  the  sixth  generation  after 
Zerubbabel.  (i  Chron.  iii,  19-24.)  Even  on 
the  supposition  that  the  line  is  not  broken  as 
here  given,  it  carries  the  period  of  composi- 
tion to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
B.  C.  Since  the  author  may  be  supposed  to 
have  witnessed  the  growth  to  manhood  of  the 
seven  sons  of  Elioenai,  we  are  brought  down 
to  the  point  where   the   Persian  merged  into 


THE  CHRONICLES.  1 25 

the  Greek  period,  as  the  mention  of  Jaddua 
the  high  priest,  a  contemporary  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  fixes  the  time  of  the  composition  of 
Ezra-Nehemiah.  The  author  is  supposed  to 
have  been  a  Levite  of  the  post-exilian  temple, 
and  one  of  the  singers,  since  he  follows  the 
activities  of  the  Levites,  and  especially  of  the 
singers,  with  uncommon  interest. 

The  trustworthiness  of  Chronicles  has  been 
severely  attacked  by  many  of  the  critics. 
The  author  almost  wholly  neglects  the  north- 
ern kingdom,  confining  himself  chiefly  to 
Judah  and  Benjamin.  In  giving  his  genea- 
logical lists  he  dwells  with  special  interest  on 
Judah,  Benjamin,  and  Levi.  He  hastens  over 
the  history  of  Israel  until  he  comes  to  David; 
and  from  then  onward  to  the  Exile  he  lays 
special  stress  upon  the  specifically  religious 
portions  of  the  history.  He  also  makes  the 
weal  or  woe  of  the  people  to  have  been  de- 
pendent upon  their  religious  loyalty  and  faith- 
fulness. This  fact  has  suggested  to  some 
critics  that  he  made  history  out  of  his  own 
subjective  prejudices  to  fit  it  to  his  theory. 
But  to  him  religion  was  not  so  much  morality 


126  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

and  justice — the  kings  were  judged  according 
to  their  attitude  toward  the  false  religions. 
His  tendency  to  avoid  mention  of  the  faults 
of  David,  Solomon,  and  other  early  kings,  and 
to  glorify  and  idealize  them,  is  attributed  to 
the  fact  that  a  downtrodden  race  which  has 
no  hope  for  the  future  seeks  to  glorify  its  past. 
He  enlarges  the  real  numbers  and  quantities 
of  men  and  of  money;  and,  according  to  the 
taste  of  the  period,  delighted  in  naked  lists  of 
names. 

In  view  of  all  this,  the  frequent  mention 
of  his  sources  has  not  saved  him  from  the 
suspicion  of  misrepresenting  and  manufac- 
turing history.  Those  who  deny  the  histor- 
ical character  of  Chronicles  assume  that  the 
author  wrote  his  history  to  show  the  blessings 
which  would  attend  a  Levitically  correct  prac- 
tice of  religion.  Since  they  suppose  his  chief 
source  of  information  to  have  been  the  canon- 
ical books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  they  hold 
that  he  accomplished  his  end  by  the  most 
unconstrained  misplacements,  additions,  omis- 
sions, inventions,  and  misrepresentations.  Ac- 
cording to  Wellhausen  he  falsely  represented 


THE  CHRONICLES.  1 27 

the  entire  Priest's  Code  as  in  use  prior  to  the 
Exile,  whereas  he  maintains  it  was  not  then 
known,  nor  in  existence.  The  answer  of  the 
more  conservative  critics  to  such  charges 
can  not  here  be  given,  except  to  say  that  they 
affirm  that  the  work  gives  the  most  indubitable 
evidence  of  trustworthiness  in  its  historical 
representations. 

Nevertheless  its  defenders  suggest  that 
caution  must  be  employed  in  the  construction 
of  history  from  the  data  given  by  the  Chron- 
icler. It  is  admitted  that  he  wrote  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  from  his  own  standpoint — the 
Levitical-priestly ;  that  in  consequence  where 
he  wished  to  dwell  upon  a  subject,  he  invol- 
untarily attributed  views  and  customs  to  the 
past  which  belonged  in  reality  to  his  own 
age;  that  his  immense  sums  of  gold  and 
silver,  sacrificial  animals,  and  soldiers  can  not 
in  all  cases  be  accepted  as  facts,  and  that  the 
errors  arose  not  from  the  carelessness  of  tran- 
scribers, but,  in  some  instances  at  least,  from 
his  love  of  large  numbers;  that  the  great 
festivals  of  David,  Solomon,  Hezekiah,  and 
Josiah  may  have  been  decked  out  with  splen- 


128  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

dors  known  only  in  a  later  time;  that  the 
Hymn  of  David  (i  Chron.  xvi),  the  longer 
speeches  of  David,  Solomon,  Abia,  Asa,  Je- 
hoshaphat,  and  Hezekiah,  together  with  the 
warnings  of  the  prophets  Nathan,  Obed,  and 
others,  may  be  free  reproductions  of  tradi- 
tional utterances  of  these  men.  Such  a  re- 
production they  defend  on  the  ground  that 
John  did  the  same  with  the  words  of  Jesus; 
and  they  deny  that  they  lose  their  historical 
worth  thereby,  any  more  than  do  the  speeches 
found  in  Thucydides  or  L^ivy,  which  are  sub- 
ject to  the  same  criticism.  Of  intentional 
misrepresentation  they  do  not  accuse  him. 
They  conclude  that  where  the  older  historical 
books  give  a  record  of  an  event  recorded  in 
Chronicles,  the  former  is  to  be  preferred;  but 
that,  except  where  there  are  special  reasons 
to  the  contrary,  what  is  peculiar  in  the  record 
of  the  Chronicles  may  be  accepted  as  a  con- 
tribution to  the  history  of  Israel. 


Part  III. 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

§25.    General   History   oe    New   Testa- 
ment Criticism. 

It  was  under  the  influence  of  rationalism 
that  the  critical  treatment  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment began.  Semler,'  in  a  series  of  treatises 
concerning  the  free  investigation  of  the  canon 
(i 771-1775),  gave  up  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion, and  made  the  canonicity  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  independent  of  their 
authorship.  The  Bible  contained  elements 
which  were  not  only  erroneous,  but  positively 
injurious  ;  others  which  were  only  local  and 
temporary;  and  still  others  which  tended  to 
moral  improvement,  or  to  real  spiritual  ben- 
efit. The  last  only  was  the  Word  of  God.  As 
the  early  Church  had  decided  upon  the  books 
which  should  be  regarded  canonical,  and  as 
Luther  had  exercised  his  own  judgment  in 
the  valuation  of  the  individual  books,  so  the 


Abhandluiigeii  von  freier  Untersucliung  des  Kanon. 
9  129 


130  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Church  of  his  (Semler's)  day  must  judge 
which  portions  of  the  Bible  it  would  admit 
into  the  canon. 

The  next  important  step  was  that  of  Bich- 
horn/  Tradition  being  no  longer  the  guiding 
principle  of  the  critics,  it  became  necessary  to 
substitute  such  hypotheses  as  would  account 
for  the  facts.  Bichhorn  supposed  that  the  pe- 
culiarities of  the  three  synoptical  Gospels 
were  capable  of  explanation  on  the  hypothesis 
that  they  had  for  their  groundwork  an  origi- 
nal Greek  Gospel  (Urevangelium).  Gieseler^ 
(1818),  on  the  other  hand,  proposed  to  explain 
all  the  facts  on  the  supposition  that  the 
Gospel  as  preached  by  the  different  apostles 
became  more  or  less  stereotyped  in  their  own 
and  their  hearers'  memories,  and,  when  re- 
duced to  writing  by  the  different  evangelists 
for  different  purposes,  must  come  forth  with 
just  such  similarities  and  divergences  as  these 
Gospels  exhibit. 

Schleiermacher'  sought,  as  early  as  181 1,  to 


*  Einleituug  in  das  Neue  Testament. 

2 Die  Entstehung  der  schriftlichen  Evangelien. 

^Darstelluug  des  Theologischen  Stvidiums. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  131 

guide  criticism  into  a  new  channel.  He  pro- 
posed to  place  the  reader  of  to-day  in  the  po- 
sition of  the  original  reader  of  the  Gospels. 
In  order  to  this,  he  discussed  first  the  history 
of  the  canon  and  the  text,  and  then  the  origin 
of  the  individual  books.  For  this  purpose  a 
knowledge  of  the  literature  of  the  period,  and 
of  the  class  of  readers  for  which  it  was  in- 
tended, was  necessary.  His  was  the  boldest 
judgment  yet  uttered  concerning  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  various  books  of  the  Bible.  He 
rejected  as  decidedly  spurious  the  synoptical 
Gospels — which  he  held  were  composed  subse- 
quent to  the  Apostolic  Age — i  Timothy,  2 
Peter,  and  Revelation ;  while  of  doubtful  gen- 
uineness were  Ephesians,  2  Timothy,  James, 
and  2  and  3  John. 

By  this  time  the  historical-critical  method 
of  Biblical  investigation  was  fairly  established ; 
and  distinguished  services  were  rendered  by 
De  Wette,  Credner,  Volkmar,  and  Neudecker. 
In  the  defense  of  traditional  views,  Guericke, 
Olshausen,  and  Neander  wrote — the  latter, 
however,  making  more  concessions  than  the 
former  two. 


132  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

With  the  Tubingen  school,  whose  founder 
was  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur/  New  Testa- 
ment criticism  passed  from  its  literary  to  its 
historical  stage.  Baur  taught  that  the  place 
of  each  New  Testament  document  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  history  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity must  be  ascertained  in  order  that 
criticism  may  fulfill  its  mission.  Such  an 
investigation  would  involve  the  question  as  to 
the  circumstances  which  called  forth  the  book, 
its  purpose,  and  its  doctrines.  As  he  studied 
early  Christianity,  he  thought  he  saw  a  pro- 
found conflict  between  the  Christianity  of 
Peter  and  that  of  Paul.  This  he  thought  was 
traceable  through  all  the  Christian  literature 
of  the  first  century,  and  far  into  the  second. 
By  it  he  proposed  to  explain  the  form  which 
the  old  Catholic  Church  took  in  the  second 
half  of  the  second  century.  It  was  also  the 
touchstone  by  which  he  tested  the  genuine- 
ness of  all  the  New  Testament  books.  The 
four   letters — i   and    2    Corinthians,   Romans, 


^  His  views  are  found  in  full  in  his  "Pauliis,"  and 
in  "  Das  Christentliiims  \x.  die  Cliristliclie  Kirclie  der 
drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte." 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  1 33 

and  Galatians — were  Pauline,  and  represented 
Paul's  own  views.  The  other  books  were  all 
written  with  a  tendency  to  bring  out  the  unity 
which  lay  beneath  the  supposed  Petrine  and 
Pauline  antagonisms.  The  single  exception 
to  this  was  the  Apocalypse,  which  represented 
the  anti- Pauline  view.  Strauss'  is  perhaps 
better  known  in  this  country  than  Baur,  and  is 
generally  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  Tiibin- 
gen  school ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  was 
far  less  profound  than  his  preceptor,  Baur, 
and  scarcely  held  or  promulgated  any  of  the 
opinions  peculiar  to  him.  Strauss  dealt  rather 
with  the  life  of  Jesus  than  with  the  questions 
of  Biblical  criticisms,  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  record  rather  than  the  authorship  of  the 
documents.  Strauss  regarded  the  incidents 
related  in  the  Gospels  as  "  myths;"  Baur  sup- 
posed the  Gospels  to  have  been  written  for  the 
purpose  of  aiding  the  harmonization  of  Pauline 
and  Petrine  Christianity.  Strauss  hurried  into 
print,  while  Baur,  his  preceptor,  was  painstak- 
ingly studying  the  whole  question.  But  the 
Tiibingen  school  had   many  able  champions, 

^L/eben  Jesu. 


134  I'HE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

among  whom  were  Zeller/  Schwegler,-  and,  for 
a  time,  Ritschl.  Bruno  Bauer  will  be  men- 
tioned under  the  latest  criticism  of  the  four 
principal  Pauline  epistles  (§38). 

We  can  not  here  mention  the  able  argu- 
ments which  the  orthodox  party  brought  to 
bear  against  the  Tiibingen  school ;  but  such 
men  as  Dietlein,  Thiersch,  Ebrard,  and  Lech- 
ler  must  at  least  find  mention.  So,  from  less 
orthodox  sources,  Bleek,  Ewald,  Meyer,  Reuss, 
and  Hase  powerfully  assisted  in  overcoming 
the  new  view.  And  even  from  within  the 
school  itself  divisions  arose.  Hilgenfeld"  soon 
took  an  independent  position.  But  especially 
was  it  RitschP  who  broke  the  strength  of  the 
Tiibingen  school  by  proving  that  Baur  had 
missed  the  real  facts  in  the  historical  develop- 
ment of  the  old  Catholic  Church;  that,  except 
for  a  short  time,  there  was  no  such  conflict  as 
Baur  saw  so  prominent  in  the  first  two  cen- 

^  His  views  were  advocated  in  the  Tlieologisclieu 
Jahrbiicher. 

'^Das  Nachapostolisclie  Zeitalter, 

^  First  in  the  "  Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftliche  Theo- 
logie,"  and  later  (1855)  in  "  Das  Urchristenthum." 

*In  Die  Entstehung  der  Altkatholischen  Kirche  (2d 
edition,  1857). 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM.  1 35 

turies;  that  Baiir's  assertion  that  to  admit 
the  reality  of  miracles  is  unhistorical,  is  in- 
correct; and  that  the  only  true  method  of 
judging  Christianity  is  not  to  place  it  under  a 
secular  measuring-rod,  but  to  estimate  it  from 
the  religious  standpoint.  The  principal  liv- 
ing representatives  of  the  Tiibingen  school 
are  O.  Pfleiderer'  and  C.  Holsten,^  although 
neither  of  them  adheres  strictly  to  Baur's 
views. 

§26.   Present-day   New   Testament 
Criticism. 

Weiss'^  divides  the  theologians  of  to-day, 
so  far  as  they  have  to  do  with  New  Testa- 
ment questions,  into  the  newer  critical  school 
and  those  whose  tendencies  are  apologetic  or 
defensive.  Under  the  former  he  ranks  Har- 
nack,  Weizsacker,  Pfleiderer,  Mangold,  H.  J. 
Holtzmann,    Immer,  Wittichen,    Lipsius    (de- 

^See  his  views  set  forth  in  his  "  Paulinismus  "  and  his 
"  Das  Urchristenthum." 

^His  opinions  are  fully  given  in  "  Zuni  Bvangelium 
des  Petrus  und  Paulus,"  "  Das  Evangeliuni  des  Paulus," 
and  "  Die  drei  iirspringlichen,  noch  ungeschriebenen 
Evangelien." 

^Eiuleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament. 


136  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ceased),  Overbeck,  Paul  Schmidt,  W.  Briick- 
ner,  Seuffert,  von  Soden.  Among  the  former 
he  mentions  Beyschlag,  Grimm,  Klopper, 
Weiss  (Bernhard),  L.  Schulze,  Hofmann  (de- 
ceased), Th.  Schott,  Luthardt,  Klostermann, 
Zahn,  Grau.  In  fact,  there  is  no  classifica- 
tion better  than  this;  although,  especially  in 
the  latter,  there  are  vast  differences. 

The  newer  critical  school  rejects  Baur's 
theory  of  an  opposition  between  a  Petrine 
and  a  Pauline  Christianity,  and  hence  finds 
the  true  explanation  of  old  Catholicism  else- 
where; but  it  maintains  many  of  the  pre- 
sumptive results  of  the  Tiibingen  school,  and 
is  governed  by  its  methods  and  presupposi- 
tions in  a  large  measure.  In  addition  to 
Paul's  four  principal  epistles,  they  generally 
accept  also  Philemon,  Philippians,  and  i  Thes- 
salonians;  but,  in  contradiction  to  the  Tii- 
bingen school,  they  reject  the  Apocalypse. 
They  do  not  accept  as  belonging  to  the  apos- 
tolic age  the  so-called  catholic  (general)  epis- 
tles, nor  Hebrews;  reject  the  fourth  Gospel 
most  decidedly ;  and  even  deny  that  the  apostle 
John  ever  lived  in  Asia  Minor. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  QUESTION.  1 37 

Among  the  apologists,  the  school  of  Hof- 
mann,  to  which  Luthardt,  Zahn,  and  Grau 
belong,  is  distinguished  by  great  conservatism 
in  the  criticism  of  the  New  Testament.  This 
school  is,  in  a  large  measure,  influenced  in  its 
criticism  by  dogmatic  considerations.  It  re- 
gards every  book  in  the  canon  as  absolutely 
necessary — the  Scriptures  as  an  organic  whole; 
and  holds  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  not 
so  much  of  each  book  as  of  the  canon  as  a 
whole.  Beyschlag  and  Weiss,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  much  freer  in  their  treatment  of  the 
canon  and  the  individual  books,  and  have  no 
respect  for  dogmatic  considerations  in  the 
conclusions  they  reach.  Yet,  compared  with 
the  critical  school,  they  may  be  called  con- 
servative. 

§27.  The  Synoptic  Question. 

A  cursory  examination  of  the  first  three  of 
our  canonical  Gospels  reveals  a  remarkable 
similarity  in  contents,  as  well  as  in  language 
and  in  the  order  observed.  This,  rather  than 
the  fact  of  variations,  has  led  to  the  critical 
theories  with    regard   to   their  origin.     Until 


138  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  beginning  of  this  century  the  prevailing 
method  of  explanation  was,  that  each  evan- 
gelist used  one  or  more  of  the  Gospels  pro- 
duced by  the  others.  Griesbach  supposed  that 
Mark  had  abbreviated  Matthew.  Wettstein 
and  others  that  Mark  used  Matthew;-  and 
Luke,  both  Matthew  and  Mark.  Ozven  held 
that  Mark  epitomized  both  Matthew  and  Luke. 
Early  in  our  century  Kichhorn  undertook 
to  explain  the  similarities  on  the  supposition 
that  the  authors  of  our  canonical  Gospels  all 
based  their  work  on  an  older  Gospel  (the  so- 
called  Primitive  Gospel),  used  by  the  assist- 
ants of  the  apostles  as  a  guide  in  their  labors. 
This  hypothesis  found  many  supporters,  but 
its  details  were  so  complicated  and  improbable 
as  to  render  it  impossible  of  final  acceptance. 
Yet  critics  generally  agree  that  his  hypothesis 
pointed  in  the  right  direction.  Taking  the 
suggestion  from  Herder^  Gieseler  undertook  to 
show  that  all  the  peculiarities  of  our  synoptic 
Gospels  can  be  best  explained  on  the  hypoth- 
esis that  a  comparatively  fixed  form  of  teach- 
ing concerning  our  Lord,  his  words  and  deeds, 
would  naturally  develop  during  the  years  in 


THE  SYNOPTIC  QUESTION.  I  39 

which  the  apostles  preached  the  gospel  in 
and  about  Jerusalem,  and  that  this  oral  gospel 
formed  the  basis  of  the  writings  of  our  canon- 
ical Gospels.  This  hypothesis  was  favorably 
received,  but  soon  discovered  to  be  inadequate ; 
although  it  is  not  without  supporters  even  in 
the  present  day. 

The  Tubingen  school  introduced  the  next 
important  change  in  the  criticism  of  the 
synoptics.  According  to  this  school  the  Gos- 
pels were  not  intended  to  be  histories,  but 
bear  the  character  of  ''tendency  writings,"  in- 
tended to  help  forward  the  union  of  the  Petrine 
and  Pauline  parties.  The  Gospels,  them- 
selves, however,  bore  but  little  evidence  of 
such  a  strife  as  Baur  had  supposed  to  exist 
for  more  than  a  century  after  the  ascension  of 
Christ.  Hence  he  supposed  them  to  have 
been  vmtten  at  a  date  late  enough  to  allow 
the  dispute  to  have  almost  died  out  (130-170). 
With  the  fall  of  the  Tiibingen  school  fell  also 
this  hypothesis  concerning  the  origin  of  the 
synoptic  Gospels. 

Early  in  this  century  IVeisse^  argued   that 

Uii  his  Bvangelisclie  Gescliichte. 


140  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  testimony  of  Papias  concerning  a  Gospel 
by  Mark  is  applicable  to  our  canonical  Mark, 
and  that  hence  we  have  here  an  original 
source  from  which  the  two  other  Gospels 
(synoptic)  drew  much  of  their  matter.  Bern- 
hard  Weiss  holds  to  a  document  still  earlier 
than  our  Mark,  and  known  to  him.  This 
document  he  supposes  to  have  contained  a 
collection  of  our  Lord's  sayings,  and  also  a 
collection  of  incidents  in  our  Lord's  life. 
Holtsmann^  thinks  these  two  were  distinct 
sources,  and  that  our  Mark  was  dependent 
upon  the  collection  of  incidents,  while  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  were  dependent  upon  it  and 
the  collection  of  sayings  of  our  Lord.  It  will 
be  impossible,  however,  to  give  here  an  ac- 
count of  the  multitudinous  theories  which 
have  been  advanced  to  clarify  the  synoptic 
question.  For  details  the  reader  is  referred  to 
the  larger  Introductions. 


^  See  his  views  in  full  in  his  "  Hand-Comnientar   zum 
Neuen  Testament."     Erster  Band. 


the  gospel  of  matthew.  141 

§28.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew. 

The  early  Church  held  this  Gospel  for  the 
first.  Holtzmann,  although  denying  that  in 
its  present  form  it  was  written  by  Matthew, 
admits  that  it  was  not  without  good  reason 
that  the  early  Church  held  it  to  be  the  work 
of  the  apostle  whose  name  it  bears.  Papias 
said  that  Matthew  wrote  a  book  of  sayings  of 
our  L/ord  in  Hebrew.  Some  think  this  does 
not  exclude  the  supposition  that  his  book  also 
contained  records  of  the  doings  of  our  Savior. 
Many  competent  critics  think  it  probable  that 
our  canonical  Matthew  is  simply  a  translation 
of  the  Hebrew  Gospel.  Others  think  that 
the  author  of  our  Matthew  drew  from  the 
apostolic  document.  Weiss  thinks  that  he 
drew  from  the  apostolic  document  and  from 
Mark.  It  is  plain  that  those  who  are  de- 
scribed in  the  last  two  sentences  deny  the 
apostolic  origin  of  our  Matthew,  although 
they  may  credit  it  with  entire  trustworthiness. 
Those  who  deny  the  apostolic  origin  of  the 
first  Gospel,  but  derive  it  from  an  apostolic 
"source,"  suppose  that  the  first  two  chapters 


142  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

did  not  belong  to  the  "source."  With  some 
it  is  doubtful  at  what  date  the  "traditions" 
arose  which  they  record. 

The  majority  place  the  date  of  the  Gospel 
about  70  A.  D. ;  but  Baur  fixed  it  at  130,  some 
of  his  followers  going  back  still  earlier  to 
105-110.  Opinions  are  divided  as  to  the  na- 
tivity of  the  author.  Holtzmann  argues  from 
chapter  xix,  i,  that  the  author  lived  in  the  coun- 
try east  of  the  Jordan.  Weiss  argues  in  favor 
of  the  non-Palestinian  residence  of  the  author, 
because  he  explains  the  names  Immanuel  and 
Golgotha,  and  the  prayer  of  Christ  on  the 
cross  (i,  23  ;  xxvii,  33,  46);  because  he  did  not 
know  the  original  home  of  the  parents  of 
Jesus,  which  he  infers  from  chapter  ii,  22;  and 
because  he  supposes  Matthew  to  have  drawn 
from  Mark,  who  was  not  an  eyewitness; 
whereas,  had  he  lived  in  Palestine,  he  would 
have  gone  direct  to  still  living  eyewitnesses. 
Others  argue  with  equal  cogency  for  the  Pales- 
tinian nativity  and  residence  of  the  author. 
It  is  pretty  generally  conceded  that  it  was 
written    for    Jewish    readers,    although    some 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK.  1 43 

think  they  were  Jews  who  lived  in  the  midst  ot 
Gentile  populations,  and  not  in  Palestine. 

§  29.  The  Gospel  of  Mark. 

The  contents  of  this  Gospel  are  nearly  all 
found  in  Matthew,  and,  for  the  most  part,  in 
essentially  the  same  order ;  but  while  Mat- 
thew undertakes  to  show  that  Jesus  is  the 
son  of  Joseph  and  the  son  of  David,  the  Mes- 
siah of  prophecy,  Mark's  purpose  is  to  exhibit 
Jesus  as  the  vSon  of  God.  Matthew  seems  to 
be  written  for  Jewish,  and  Mark  for  heathen 
Christians. 

Mark  has  sometimes  been  taken  for  an  epit- 
ome of  Matthew,  sometimes  for  an  epitome  of 
the  first  and  the  third  Gospel.  Weiss  thinks 
Mark's  chief  source  was  the  collection  of  our 
Lord's  words  and  deeds  by  Matthew — the  so- 
called  Logia  document ;  Hilgenfeld,  that  it  was 
a  tendency  document,  designed  to  harmonize 
doctrinal  differences  between  parties;  Volk- 
mar,^  to  show  that  Paulinism  began  as  early 
as  the  time  of  Christ.     Some  think  this  not 


'  In  Marcus  uud  die  Synopsis. 


144  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  Gospel  written  by  Mark,  but  that  it  is 
based  upon  a  Gospel  by  him.  The  majority 
are  disposed  to  believe  that  this  Gospel  is  the 
product  of  a  pupil  of  Peter,  as  Mark  was  sup- 
posed to  be.     (i  Peter  v,  13.) 

The  same  arguments  which  would  fix  the 
date  of  Matthew  prior  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  hold  good  for  Mark.  Those  who 
regard  Mark  as  the  author,  place  it  about  that 
time.  Those  who  hold  to  a  primitive  Mark, 
upon  which  our  Mark  is  based,  or  maintain 
that  ours  is  made  up  of  extracts  from  the  other 
Gospels,  place  the  date  variously  from  no  to 
130  A.  D.  The  genuineness  of  chapter  xvi, 
9-20  has  been  challenged.  It  does  not  seem 
to  fit  well  the  former  part  of  the  chapter,  and 
it  is  wanting  in  some  of  the  oldest  manu- 
scripts. 

§  30.  The  GospeIv  of  IvUke. 

While  there  are  many  critics  who  deny 
that  our  third  Gospel  was  written  by  the  per- 
son whose  name  it  bears,  attributing  it  rather 
to  Timothy,  Titus,  or  some  other  person,  the 
majority  admit  the  truth  of  the  constant  tra- 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE.  1 45 

dition  from  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  that  it  was 
written  by  Luke.  This  is  supported  by  the 
almost  universally  accepted  theory  that  the 
Gospel  was  produced  by  one  who  had  been 
closely  associated  with  Paul,  and  represents 
his  conception  of  the  availability  of  the  gos- 
pel of  Christ  for  heathen  as  well  as  Jews. 
This  is  proved  by  the  many  coincidences  be- 
tween the  doctrinal  presuppositions  of  the 
Gospel  and  Paul's  well-known  views,  as  well 
as  by  the  harmony  of  its  historical  statements 
with  Paul's  record  of  the  same  events. 

The  date  of  composition  has  been  a  point 
in  controversy.  The  Tiibingen  school,  re- 
garding it  as  a  tendency  document,  intended 
to  act  as  an  irenic  in  harmonizing  the  sup- 
posed Pauline  and  Petrine  factions,  could 
not  at  first  place  it  earlier  than  130  A.  D. 
Present-day  adherents  of  that  school  place  it 
about  100  A.  D.  Deniers  of  the  principle  of 
the  Tiibingenites  feel  at  liberty  to  place  it 
anywhere  between  63  and  80  A.  D.  The  gen- 
eral supposition  that  Luke  and  Acts  were 
written  by  the  same  person  makes  it  probable 
that  the  former  was  written  before  the  latter  ; 


146  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

but  the  abrupt  close  of  Acts  with  the  account 
of  Paul's  imprisonment  in  Rome,  has  sug- 
gested that  the  Gospel  must  have  been  writ- 
ten prior  to  64.  This  presupposes,  however, 
that  the  Acts  was  intended  to  give  a  history 
of  the  apostles.  Most  critics  deny  this,  and 
explain  the  book  as  an  account  of  the  spread 
of  Christianity,  and  think  that  Luke  was  sat- 
isfied when  he  had  traced  its  progress  to 
Rome,  the  capital  of  the  empire.  In  this 
case,  the  date  with  which  Acts  closes  would 
give  no  hint  of  the  date  of  composition  ;  and 
hence  none  of  the  date  of  the  composition  of 
Ivuke.  This  clue  having  failed,  other  critics 
decide  from  such  criteria  as  they  can  find. 
Weiss,  who  regards  Luke  as  the  author,  thinks 
it  was  written  about  A.  D.  80. 

In  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel,  Luke  sets 
forth  his  purpose  to  write  an  exact  account  of 
the  life  and  deeds  of  our  Lord.  He  intimates 
that  others  before  him  have  not  succeeded  in 
this  attempt.  This  suggested  that  he  could 
not  have  meant  to  criticise  Matthew  and 
Mark ;  and  hence  these  Gospels  were  not  in 
existence  when  he  wrote.     This  would  make 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE.  1 47 

Luke  the  first  of  our  canonical  Gospels  in 
order  of  time.  But  in  any  case  it  is  as- 
serted that  he  proposed  to  profit  by  the  defects 
of  his  predecessors;  and  hence  he  must  have 
had  "  sources  "  at  his  command.  What  these 
were,  is  the  question.  Weiss  thinks  he  had 
the  apostolic  document  of  Matthew,  and  that, 
besides,  he  employed  Mark  and  another  source 
traceable,  but  whose  authorship  is  unknown. 
Others  who  adhere  more  closely  to  the  theory 
of  Gieseler  (§  27),  lay  greater  stress  upon  the 
information  he  received  from  eyewitnesses  of 
the  life  of  our  Lord,  and  from  Paul. 

Attacks  have  been  made  upon  the  historical 
trustworthines  of  this  Gospel;  but  they  are 
little  emphasized  in  the  present  day.  Luke 
assures  us  that  his  purpose  was  to  write  accu- 
rately, so  that  Theophilus  might  be  confirmed 
in  the  teaching  he  had  received.  The  integ- 
rity of  the  book  is  universally  conceded  at 
present.  Some  reject  the  statements  of  the 
first  two  chapters,  explaining  their  admission 
into  the  book  as  best  they  may.  The  chief 
obstacle  to  their  acceptance  is  the  miracles 
they  record. 


148  the  higher  criticism. 

§31.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

The  connection  of  this  book  with  the  fore- 
going makes  it  convenient  to  treat  it  here  in- 
stead of  after  John.  It  is  generally,  though 
not  universally,  agreed  that  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  also  wrote  the  Acts,  and  that  it  was 
Luke  who  wrote  both.  Some,  however,  hold 
that  Luke  wrote  the  "  we  "  portions — that  is, 
the  portions  in  which  the  author  writes  in  the 
first  person  plural — and  that  this  was  made  in 
part  the  basis  of  the  book,  especially  of  the 
latter  part,  by  another  author. 

As  to  the  sources  of  information,  critics 
generally  hold  that  they  were  mostly  written. 
This  supposition  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
those  who  believe  it  to  be  a  production  of  the 
second  century.  But  while  few  think  oral 
sources  sufficient  to  explain  the  peculiarities 
of  the  Acts,  many  believe  that  Luke  received 
much  of  his  information  from  those  who  were 
eyewitnesses  of  the  events  recorded.  The 
majority,  therefore,  believe  in  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  record.  The  miraculous  nature  of 
many  of   the  events  has  only  caused   its  cor- 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN.  1 49 

rectness  to  be  doubted  by  those  who  reject  all 
miracle.  The  Tlibingenites  held  that  the 
facts  were  distorted  to  suit  the  purpose  of  the 
author,  which  was  to  harmonize  the  Pauline 
and  Petrine  factions.  Paul's  sayings  and  do- 
ings were  modified  to  give  them  a  Petrine 
coloring;  and  Peter's,  to  conform  them  more 
nearly  to  the  standard  of  Paul.  But  even 
followers  of  the  Tiibingen  school  now  largely 
discredit  this  idea.  Other  questions  will  be 
found  mentioned  in  the  preceding  section. 

§32.  The  Gospel  of  John. 

The  Johannean  question  briefly  stated  is 
this:  The  synoptic  Gospels  present  a  picture 
of  Christ  so  different  from  that  of  John  that 
many  have  felt  that  if  the  former  are  true  to 
the  facts  the  latter  is  false,  and  vice  versa. 
The  doubt  has  also  been  strongly  felt  of  the 
possibility  of  John's  having  written  both  the 
Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse. 

The  first  to  raise  any  serious  doubt  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospel  was  Brctschncider} 
In  one  form   or   another  he  presented  about 

^In  his  "  Probabilia." 


I50  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

all  the  objections  that  have  ever  been  pro- 
duced. Among  the  principal  opposers  of 
Bretschneider  was  Schleiermacher,  He  argued 
that  the  Synoptics  and  John  are  respectively 
to  Jesus  what  Xenophon  and  Plato  were  to 
Socrates.  In  both  cases  the  former  concerned 
themselves  rather  with  externalities,  and  the 
latter  with  the  true  inner  personality  of  their 
masters.  With  Baiir  a  new  form  of  criticism 
began.  He  attempted  to  show  that  the  whole 
Gospel  is  simply  an  attempt  to  construct  the 
history  of  Jesus  in  accordance  with  the  I^ogos 
idea  of  the  prologue.  In  this  way  he  ex- 
plained the  divergences  of  the  fourth  from 
the  first  three  Gospels,  which  far  more  nearly 
represented  to  him  the  real  history.  Hence 
it  was  not  written  by  an  apostle;  and  it  was 
not  written — as  we  might  expect  of  John — 
from  the  Judaistic-legalistic  standpoint,  but 
from  that  of  the  heathen-universalistic  Chris- 
tian. Since  it  presupposes  the  entire  develop- 
ment of  Christianity  to  the  middle  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  it  could  not  have  been  written 
until  after  that  time. 

The  defenders  of   the   genuineness  of  the 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN.  151 

Gospel  have  generally  rejected  all  attempts  to 
show  that  it  is  genuine  only  in  parts,  and 
have  insisted  that  it  is  wholly  reliable  history ; 
but  there  are  those  who  have  admitted  that 
John  may  have  unintentionally  colored  the 
utterances  of  Jesus  according  to  his  own  sub- 
jectivity, although  giving  them  in  the  main 
as  they  fell  from  the  lips  of  our  Lord.  Such 
was  the  view  held  by  Litthardt}  Weizsdcker 
holds  essentially  to  this  opinion;  but  denies 
that  it  was  written  by  John,  attributing  it  to 
one  of  his  disciples. 

At  the  present  time  there  is  a  tendency 
on  the  part  of  the  opposers  and  defenders  of 
the  genuineness  to  come  still  nearer  together.^ 
The  opposers  place  the  date  earlier  than  for- 
merly, and  allow  more  of  historical  trust- 
worthiness; the  defenders  grant  that  John 
wrote  his  Gospel  under  the  influence  of  the 
impression  which  Jesus  made  upon  him 
throughout  a  long  life.  This  is  the  opinion 
of  such  men  as   I^uthardt  (as  before  stated), 


^  Das  Evangelium  iiach  Johannes. 

^Scliurer,  Ueber  den  gegenwiirtegen  Stand  der  Jolian- 


neischen  Frage. 


152  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Grau,  Beyschlag,  and  Weiss.  Others  there 
are,  however,  who  defend  the  genuineness, 
trustworthiness,  and  integrity  of  the  Gospel 
in  every  sense  of  the  word.  Among  these 
may  be  mentioned  Godet  and  Keil.  To  such 
thinkers,  John  is  not  theology  clothed  in  bio- 
graphical or  historical  form,  but  genuine  his- 
tory. They  deny  any  contradiction  between 
John  and  the  Synoptics,  and  stand  firmly  by 
the  reality  of  all  John's  representations.^ 

§33.  The  Johannean  Epistles. 

The  majority  agree  that  the  Gospel  and 
First  Epistle  of  John  were  written  by  the 
same  person.  Of  course  the  Tiibingen  school 
deny  that  the  author  is  John,  and  place  the 
date  of  both  comparatively  late  in  the  second 
century.  One  of  the  critical  questions  has 
been:  Which  is  earlier,  the  Gospel  or  the 
First  Epistle?  Baur  decided  in  favor  of  the 
Gospel,  because  he  thought  the  Epistle  so 
poor   in   thought.     Hilgenfeld,  on    the   other 

^  A  most  excellent  defense  of  John  will  be  found  in 
Nast's  forthcoming  volume  on  the  fourth  Gospel,  ad- 
vance sheets  of  which  have  been  kindly  placed  at  our 
disposal. 


THE  JOHANNEAN  EPISTLES.  1 5 3 

hand,  took  opposite  ground,  because  of  the 
riches  he  saw  in  the  Epistle.  Both  as- 
sumed that  the  earlier  one  must  be  the  richer 
in  thought.  The  newer  critical  school  deny 
the  Johannean  authorship  of  both  Gospel  and 
Epistle. 

Bretschneider  was  the  first  of  importance 
to  deny  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the 
Epistle.  Both  he  and  Paulus  attributed  it  to 
John  the  Presbyter.  The  principal  reason  they 
assigned  was  the  nature  of  the  error  referred 
to  in  the  Epistle.  This  they  supposed  to  be 
the  error  of  Docetism.  Since  that  time,  there 
has  been  a  dispute  among  the  critics  as  to 
what  the  error  really  was  which  John  con- 
demned. Perhaps  the  majority  have  now 
reached  the  conclusion  that  the  false  doctrine 
attacked  was  that  of  Cerinthus,  who  taught 
that  the  heavenly  ^on,  Christ,  united  him- 
self with  Jesus  at  his  baptism,  and  separated 
from  him  before  his  death.  The  Cerinthian 
error  was  promulgated  during  the  lifetime  of 
John  the  apostle. 

Even  those  who  in  the  present  day  deny 
the  Johannean  authorship  of  the  First  Epistle, 


154  ^^^  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

affirm  that  it  rests  on  Johaiinean  traditions, 
which  had  continued  to  make  themselves  felt 
to  a  very  late  date.  Baur  thought  he  found  in 
the  Epistle  evidences  of  the  influence  of 
Montanism.  In  any  case,  the  supposition 
that  the  Epistle  was  written  to  confute  error 
is  erroneous,  as  one  can  see  in  the  very  first 
verses  of  the  first  chapter,  where  the  purpose 
of  the  letter  is  named.  Some  have  supposed 
the  Epistle  to  have  been  written  in  Patmos, 
but  the  majority  place  it  in  Ephesus. 

Even  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  have 
been  made  to  bear  the  character  of  tendency 
writings  by  the  Tiibingen  school.  Baur  sup- 
posed that  they  were  written  to  the  Monta- 
nistic  portion  of  the  Roman  congregation. 
He  attributed  them  to  a  third  John,  only  the 
Apocalypse,  according  to  him,  being  the  work 
of  the  apostle.  Opinions  have  differed  decid- 
edly as  to  the  real  authorship  of  the  epistles 
among  those  who  deny  them  to  John.  Per- 
haps the  majority  favor  the  authorship  of  the 
Presbyter  John.  This  they  support  particu- 
larly by  the  fact  that,  while  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  nowhere  names 


THE  BOOK  OF  RE  VELA  TION.  1 5  5 

himself,  here  the  author  calls  himself  the 
Presbyter.  One  of  the  critical  questions  here 
is,  whether  the  Second  Epistle  is  addressed  to 
a  Christian  matron  or  to  a  congregation  under 
the  figure  of  a  matron.  The  generally  ac- 
cepted opinion  is  the  former.  Hilgenfeld 
thinks  it  was  written  for  the  entire  Christian 
Church.  The  majority  of  those  who  attribute 
these  letters  to  the  Apostle  John  think  they 
were  written  about  the  same  time,  and  at 
Ephesus.  Weiss  thinks  they  were  written 
prior  to  the  First  Epistle. 

§  34.  The  Book  of  Revelation. 

While  we  are  treating  the  other  Johannean 
books,  we  depart  in  this — as  in  some  other 
cases — from  the  canonical  order  of  the  books, 
so  as  to  bring  those  by  the  same  author  to- 
gether. The  principal  questions  with  which 
we  are  concerned  are  those  of  the  genuineness 
and  the  unity  of  the  book.  For  the  first  time, 
we  have  to  record  that  the  Tiibingen  school 
adhered  to  the  genuineness  of  a  non-Pauline 
New  Testament  book.  To  them  no  book  had 
so  good  testimony  to  its  apostolic  origin  as  the 


156  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Apocalypse ;  but  while  they  held  John  for 
its  author,  it  is  to  be  feared  their  chief  mo- 
tive was  to  find  an  excuse  for  the  rejection 
of  the  Johannean  origin  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
According  to  the  Tiibingen  critics,  it  was  im- 
possible that  both  Revelation  and  Gospel 
should  have  been  written  by  the  same  person. 
This  opinion  was  shared  by  Schleiermacher, 
Neander,  and  others ;  but  these  rejected  the 
Apocalypse  in  the  interest  of  the  Gospel. 
Weizsacker  thinks  there  is  enough  difference 
between  Revelation  and  the  Gospel  to  exclude 
a  common  authorship,  but  that  there  is  also 
enough  similarity  to  suggest  it.  Among  those 
who  have  denied  the  Johannean  authorship  is 
Luther.  On  the  other  hand,  the  genuineness 
is  defended  by  a  powerful  company,  includ- 
ing the  Tiibingenites.  Truly,  theology,  like 
politics,  sometimes  makes  strange  bedfellows. 
Another  class  will  not  deny  its  Johannean 
character,  although  they  dispute  his  author- 
ship. Volkmar  thinks  it  was  written  by  an 
antagonist  of  Paulinism,  but  in  the  spirit  of 
John.  Weizsacker  thinks  it  was  written  by  a 
pupil  of  John,  toward  the  end  of  the  first  cen- 


THE  BOOK  OF  REVELATION.  1 57 

tury,  but  subsequent  to  the  apostle's  death. 
Grau  holds  that  it  was  written  under  the  di- 
rection of  the  apostle. 

The  unity  of  the  book  has  also  in  recent 
years  been  vigorously  attacked.  Volter^ 
thought  he  could  distinguish  five  strata  in 
the  book:  i.  A  primitive  Apocalypse  of  the 
Apostle  John  in  the  year  65  or  66;  2.  A  sup- 
plement by  the  original  apocalyptist  in  the 
year  68  or  69;  3.  The  first  revision,  in  the 
time  of  Trajan;  4.  The  second  revision,  about 
129  or  130;  5.  The  third  revision,  about  the 
year  140.  Vischer'^  gave  a  new  turn  to  the 
discussion  when  he  announced  the  theory  that 
Revelation  is  a  Jewish  Apocalypse,  revised  by 
a  Christian  hand,  with  additions.  This  he 
supports  on  the  ground  that  the  book  contains 
unmistakably  Jewish  elements,  together  with 
others  as  distinctively  Christian.  Diisterdieck, 
while  not  accepting  Vischer's  theory,  admits 
that  it  has  in  its  favor  the  fact  that  Jewish 
Apocalypses  were  sometimes  so  revised  by 
Christians,   and    thus    found    their   way    into 


^ Bntstehung  der  Apocahpse. 
^  Offeubarung  Johannis. 


158  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

congregational  use.  Schoji^  assumed  that  the 
Christian  author  took  up  into  his  work  Jew- 
ish oracles  of  the  year  68-70.  Pfliederer 
thinks  there  are  distinguishable  two  Jewish 
apocalyptists  and  two  Christian  revisers. 
The  second  of  the  two  former  adopted  an 
Apocalypse  of  the  years  66-70.  The  first 
Christian  reviser  wrote  under  Domitian;  the 
second,  under  Hadrian.  Spitta''-  assumes  that 
John  Mark  wrote  an  Apocalypse  about  A.  D. 
70.  This  was  combined,  toward  the  end  of 
the  first  century,  with  two  Jewish  Apocalypses, 
the  first  of  which  belonged  in  the  time  of 
Ponipey;    the  second,  in  the  time  of  Caligula. 

The  time  and  place  of  composition  are 
both  in  dispute  among  the  critics,  who  are  by 
no  means  at  one  as  to  whether  it  was  written 
before  or  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  or 
as  to  the  place  of  composition. 

According  to  Volkmar,  the  false  teachers 
of  chapter  xvi,  13,  include  Paul;  and  Volter 
identifies  the  Nicolaitans  with  the  Mon- 
tanists. 


^  Iv'Origine  de  I'Apocalypse  de  Saint  Jean. 
"^  Die  Oifenbarung  des  Johannes. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES.  1 59 

It  is  also  a  disputed  question  whether  the 
scenes  follow  each  other,  or  are  intended  to 
be  contemporaneous.  The  difference  of  view 
here  gives  rise  to  a  great  variety  of  methods 
of  interpretation.  The  book  is  one  which 
more  than  any  other  puzzles  the  critics. 

§35.  The  Epistle  of  James. 

The  principal  critical  questions  connected 
with  this  Epistle  center  about  its  relationship 
to  the  teachings  of  St.  Paul.  Luther  thought 
its  teachings  were  diametrically  opposed  to 
those  of  Paul;  and  as  he  accepted  Paul's 
views  alone  as  evangelical,  he  called  James 
an  epistle  of  straw.  The  Tiibingen  school 
also  held  that  Paul's  letters  and  James  were 
contradictory,  and  saw  in  this  a  proof  of  the 
supposed  antagonism  between  Paul  and  the 
original  apostles;  although  it  did  not  fit  into 
their  scheme  to  make  the  Apostle  James  the 
author  of  the  Epistle.  The  majority  of  crit- 
ics to-day  do  not  see  any  essential  contradic- 
tion between  James  and  Paul.  There  is  one 
class  who  regard  the  Epistle  as  having  been 
written    so    early   that   it   could    not  possibly 


l6o  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

have  been  intended  to  antagonize  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  justification,  since  that  doctrine 
had  not  yet  spread  very  far,  or  perhaps  had  not 
even  been  promulgated.  According  to  them, 
James  saw  in  the  Jewish  Christians  scattered 
abroad  among  the  Gentile  populations  certain 
defects  both  in  the  theory  and  practice  of 
Christianity,  and  these  his  letter  was  written 
to  correct.  Others  think  that  the  Epistle  was 
written  after  the  doctrines  of  Paul  had  be- 
come well  known,  and  that  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  had  full  knowledge  of  them.  Of 
these  that  portion  who  deny  any  purpose  to 
antagonize  St.  Paul  or  his  doctrine,  suppose 
that  James  intends  merely  to  guard  his  read- 
ers against  false  applications  of  the  Pauline 
doctrine. 

§36.  First  and  Second  Peter. 

Among  the  methods  employed  to  cast 
doubt  upon  the  genuineness  of  First  Peter 
has  been  the  attempt  to  show  that  Peter  never 
was  so  situated  that  he  could  have  learned 
the  Greek.  Another  point  much  disputed  is 
as  to  the  relation   between   First   Peter   and 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  PETEk.  l6l 

Ephesians.  The  coincidences  are  acknowl- 
edged by  all;  but  some  think  First  Peter  was 
influenced  by  Ephesians;  others  hold  pre- 
cisely the  reverse.  It  is  also  a  question 
whether  the  Epistle  is  written  to  Jewish 
Christians,  to  heathen  Christians,  or  to  mixed 
congregations  of  Jew^s  and  heathen.  The 
Tiibingen  school  held  First  Peter  to  be  spuri- 
ous, and  attributed  it  to  the  purpose  of  the 
author  to  unite  the  divided  parties  in  the 
Church.  According  to  their  theory  the  Epis- 
tle, pretending  to  come  from  Peter,  testified 
to  the  correctness  of  Paul's  teaching.  Of 
course  since,  according  to  their  view,  it  was 
not  written  by  Peter,  but  by  a  member  of  the 
Pauline  party,  it  was  a  pious  fraud. 

The  genuineness  of  Second  Peter  has  been 
far  more  generally  doubted  than  that  of  the 
First  Epistle.  The  principal  source  of  doubt, 
so  far  as  the  internal  evidence  is  concerned, 
is  the  relationship  it  sustains  to  the  Epistle 
of  Jude.  The  dependence  of  one  upon  the 
other  is  universally  admitted.  Opinions  di- 
vide as  to  whether  Second  Peter  drew  from 
Jude   or   the   reverse;    but   defenders   of    the 


l62  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

genuineness  deny  that  Peter  could  not  or 
would  not  have  drawn  from  Jude.  The  fact 
that  he  touches  upon  matters  wholly  unmen- 
tioned  in  the  first  letter  the  defenders  explain 
on  the  supposition  that  a  considerable  time 
elapsed  between  the  composition  of  the  two 
epistles,  during  which  those  addressed  in  both 
letters  had  undergone  a  change  of  situation. 
The  late  adoption  into  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  has  caused  many  to  doubt 
its  Petrine  origin,  is  generally  explained  on 
the  supposition  that  it  was  written  too  near 
the  death  of  the  apostle  to  obtain  circulation 
during  his  lifetime,  and  hence,  from  the  be- 
ginning, lay  under  the  shadow  of  unjust 
doubt. 

§37.  The  BPIST1.E  OF  Jude. 

This  is  another  of  the  New  Testament 
books  which  Luther  rejected;  but  he  was 
governed  by  the  traditional  view  that  the 
author  meant  to  represent  himself  as  an  apos- 
tle; whereas,  to  Luther,  it  was  apparent  that 
he  was  not  an  apostle.  Critics  now  almost 
universally  admit  that  the  letter  does  not  in 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE.  1 63 

any  way  make  the  claim  to  having  been  writ- 
ten by  an  apostle,  but  by  Jude,  the  brother  of 
James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord.  He  was  also 
governed  in  his  opinion  by  its  apparent  rela- 
tion of  dependence  upon  Second  Peter,  and 
by  its  quotation  from  the  Book  of  Enoch.  It 
has  been  often  supposed  that  the  false  teach- 
ers condemned  by  Jude  are  those  prophesied 
by  Peter,  and  hence  that  Jude  must  be  later 
by  some  years  than  Second  Peter;  but  others 
are  of  the  opinion  that  Jude  does  not  attack 
false  doctrine,  but  a  misapplication  of  Pauline 
truth.  It  is  admitted  on  all  sides  that  the 
citation  from  the  Book  of  Enoch  gives  us  no 
data  by  which  to  determine  the  time  of  com- 
position; and  critics  to-day  take  no  offense, 
as  Luther  did,  at  the  citation  of  unscriptural 
books  by  a  Scripture  writer.  The  newer  crit- 
ical school  generally,  however,  deny  that  it 
was  written  by  Jude,  the  brother  of  James, 
and  place  the  date  of  composition  about  A.  D. 
140.  They  think  it  professes  to  antagonize 
the  Gnosis  of  Carpocrates,  and  the  Antino- 
mian  Gnosis  of  the  second  century  in  general. 


1 64  the  higher  criticism. 

§38.  Galatians,  Romans,  and   First  and 
Second  Corinthians. 

Until  very  recently  criticism  had,  almost 
without  exception,  admitted  the  genuineness 
of  these  four  principal  Pauline  epistles.  F.  C. 
Baur,  the  founder  of  the  Tiibingen  school,  de- 
clared that  the  evidence  of  their  Pauline  ori- 
gin was  so  indubitable  that  it  was  unthink- 
able how  criticism  could  ever  raise  doubts 
concerning  them.  In  fact,  these  and  the  Rev- 
elation of  St.  John  were  the  necessary  founda- 
tion of  their  theory  that  there  was  a  profound 
disharmony  between  Paul  and  the  primitive 
apostles.  Bruno  Bauer's^  attempt  to  cast 
doubt  upon  the  genuineness  of  these  epistles 
received  no  countenance  whatever.  The  first 
in  recent  years  to  attack  their  genuineness 
were  the  two  Hollanders,  Pierson  and  Loman. 
Pierson^  says  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  so 
remarkable  a  personage  as  the  Paul  of  Gala- 
tians  is   a  fiction  of  a   member  of  the  ultra- 


^Kritik  der  Paulinischen  Briefe. 

^De   bergrede   en   aiidere    Synoptisclie    Fragmeuteu, 
and  in  various  articles. 


THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES.  1 65 

Pauline  school,  and  not  a  reality.  But  it  re- 
mained for  the  Swiss  theologian,  Rudolf 
Steck,^  to  develop  this  doubt  systematically. 
He  attempts  to  prove  that  none  of  the  four 
principal  letters  attributed  to  Paul  is  from 
his  pen;  and,  in  fact,  that  we  have  nothing 
which  was  written  by  him.  His  method  of 
investigation  is  far  more  scholarly,  calm,  and 
respectful  than  Bruno  Bauer's,  and,  unlike  him, 
he  maintains  the  historic  personality  of  Jesus 
Christ.  According  to  his  view  it  is  improper 
to  assume  the  genuineness  of  these  four  let- 
ters, and  it  is  the  duty  of  criticism  to  apply 
the  same  principles  to  their  investigation  that 
are  applied  to  the  smaller  Pauline  epistles. 
The  importance  of  the  problem  thus  raised 
demands  comparative  fullness  of  treatment. 

Steck  affirms  that  we  must  either  allow 
that  Paul  wrote  more  than  these  four  principal 
letters,  or  else  deny  that  we  have  anything 
whatever  from  his  pen.  He  argues  that  since 
Revelation — which  was  one  of  the  main  sup- 
ports of  the  Tiibingen   school — has   recently 


^In  "Der  Galaterbrief."     He  is  well  answered  by  Jo- 
hannes Gloel,  Die  jiiugste  Kritik  des  Galaterbriefes. 


1 66  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

fallen  into  doubt,  we  must  needs  suspect, 
also,  the  other  books  acceptable  to  the  Tiibin- 
genites.  He  sees  in  Galatians  a  dependence 
upon  Romans  and  the  Corinthian  letters  of 
such  a  kind  that  it  is  impossible  they  should 
all  have  been  written  by  the  same  hand.  He 
regards  the  Paulinism  of  Galatians  as  far  more 
advanced  than  that  of  Romans.  While  the 
Tiibingen  school  rejected  the  Acts  as  historic- 
ally untrustworthy,  Steck  regards  its  informa- 
tion concerning  Paul  as  substantially  reliable. 
He  thinks  the  author  of  Galatians  secured  his 
information  largely  from  the  Acts,  but  distorted 
it  in  the  interest  of  ultra- Paulinism.  To  his 
mind,  the  most  senseless  thing  which  could 
have  been  done  at  the  time  was  what  is  re- 
lated in  Galatians  ii.  The  author  of  Gala- 
tians meant  to  deny  that  Paul  ever  made  the 
smallest  concession.  The  Paul  of  Galatians 
is  not  the  real  Paul,  but  an  ideal  of  an  ex- 
treme disciple  of  the  great  apostle  to  the 
heathen.  In  Galatians,  which  was  composed 
about  A.  D.  1 20,  is  found  not  the  Paulinism 
of  Paul,  but  of  his  disciples.  He  thus  sup- 
poses that  the  opposition  between  Paulinism 


THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES.  1 67 

and  Jewish  Christianity  did  not  appear  in  its 
sharpest  form  during,  but  subsequent  to,  the 
lifetime  of  the  apostles. 

His  conclusions  concerning  Galatians  he 
seeks  to  support  by  pointing  out  the  evi- 
dences of  a  late  composition  for  the  Roman 
and  Corinthian  letters.  He  also  affirms  that 
the  Christology  of  these  letters  is  too  advanced 
for  the  time  of  Paul,  the  argument  being 
based  on  the  presumption  that  the  Christology 
of  the  primitive  apostles  was  far  simpler  than 
that  which  prevailed  seventy-five  years  later. 
In  this  connection,  also,  he  draws  an  argu- 
ment from  the  similarity  in  many  particulars 
of  the  Johannean  and  the  Pauline  Christology. 
From  the  fact,  also,  that  the  Old  Testament 
citations  are  from  the  LXX  version,  he  argues 
that  the  author  could  not  have  been  acquainted 
with  the  Hebrew,  which  Paul  of  course  under- 
stood. He  also  attempts  to  show  that  these 
four  letters  exhibit  a  literary  dependence  upon 
the  synoptical  Gospels,  the  Ascension  of  Moses, 
the  fourth  Book  of  Ezra,  and  the  philosophical 
writings  of  Philo  and  Seneca.  On  the  other 
hand,  he    denies    that   any    writing    prior   to 


1 68  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

A.  D.  130  shows  literary  dependence  upon 
our  four  letters. 

Steck  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  antagonism 
between  the  Pauline  and  the  primitive  apos- 
tolic Christianity  became  greatly  accentuated 
subsequent  to  Paul's  death,  and  that  the  order 
of  the  development  of  this  antagonism  is 
marked  by  the  order  of  the  composition  of 
these  four  epistles,  which  he  makes  Romans, 
First  and  Second  Corinthians,  Galatians.  All 
the  New  Testament  documents  were  produced, 
according  to  him,  in  the  first  half  of  the  sec- 
ond century.  The  custom  of  attributing  let- 
ters to  celebrated  men  was  so  common  in 
those  days  as  to  remove  it  from  the  category 
of  the  blameworthy.  He  even  claims  for  his 
universal  rejection  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
New  Testament  documents  an  advantage  equal 
to  allowing  all  to  be  genuine.  If  all  are  spu- 
rious, none  are  spurious ;  no  single  document 
falls  into  contempt  in  comparison  with  others 
because  it  is  supposed  to  be  spurious. 

In  Germany,  Steck's  criticism  has  found 
only  opposition ;  but  in  Holland,  where  the 
movement  had  its  start,  it  has  found  consider- 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  THESSALONIANS.      1 69 

able  favor.  Professor  Van  Manen,  of  Leyden, 
goes  much  farther  than  Steck.  He  even  ac- 
cuses him  of  too  great  conservatism  in  allow- 
ing historical  trustworthiness  to  the  Acts. 
With  Steck,  Paul  is  a  great  historical  person- 
age. Van  Manen  does  not  deny  his  existence ; 
but  he  denies  that  we  know  anything  very 
distinct  concerning  him.  He  suspects  that 
we  have  to  thank  Gnosticism  for  the  four 
principal  letters  of  Paul.  According  to  this, 
we  would  have  absolutely  no  data  but  our 
own  inner  consciousness  to  teach  us  what 
Paul  taught,  or  who  he  was. 

§39.  First  and  Second  Thessalonians. 

The  common  interpretation  of  the  first 
three  chapters  of  First  Thessalonians  in  the 
days  of  Baur,  according  to  which  the  apostle 
was  supposed  merely  to  have  given  expression 
therein  to  the  feelings  of  his  heart,  suggested 
that  no  worthy  motive  could  be  discerned  for 
the  Epistle,  and  hence  it  was  not  apostolic. 
He  also  rejected  the  supposition  of  Pauline 
origin,  because  he  thought  it  to  be  dependent 
upon  the  Acts,  which  he  regarded  as  a  post- 


170  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

apostolic  production.  The  late  date  of  the 
epistles  has  been  suspected  because  of  the 
celebrity  of  the  congregation  at  the  time  of 
writing,  and  the  supposed  considerable  num- 
ber of  deaths  which  had  occurred  among  the 
Thessalonian  Christians.  It  has  also  been 
thought  that  both  the  doctrine  and  the  lan- 
guage of  the  epistles  are  un-Pauline. 

The  apocalyptical  character  of  part  of  the 
Second  Epistle  has  given  occasion  to  consid- 
erable criticism.  During  the  first  century  the 
opinion  prevailed  that  although  Nero  had 
disappeared  he  was  not  dead,  and  that  he 
would  reappear  from  the  Orient.  The  apoca- 
lyptical features  of  Second  Thessalonians  have 
been  supposed  to  be  constructed  in  some  way 
according  to  this  expectation.  The  one  thing 
common  to  all  these  theories  is,  that  Vespa- 
sian was  that  which  "hindered,"  and  who 
must  be  gotten  out  of  the  way  before  the 
Apocalypse  could  be  fulfilled.  Hilgenfeld 
took  a  different  view.  He  thought  he  saw  in 
the  "falling  away"  a  time  of  severe  persecu- 
tion, and  hence  held  that  the  letter  was  writ- 
ten during   the  reign  of  Trajan.     Especially 


EPHESIANS.  171 

did   he   regard   the  ^'mystery  of  iniquity"  as 
identical  with  the  rising  Gnosticism. 

The  vast  majority  of  the  newer  critical 
school  maintain  the  genuineness  of  the  First 
Epistle  and  reject  that  of  the  Second;  but  as 
there  are  names  of  the  first  order  who  can  be 
quoted  against  the  First,  so  can  others  equally 
strong  be  quoted  in  favor  of  the  Pauline  origin 
of  the  Second. 

§40.  Ephesians. 

The  principal  argument  which  has  been 
urged  against  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle 
is  its  relationship  to  Colossians,  which  has 
been  supposed  to  be  that  of  dependence.  It 
has  been  declared  that  Ephesians  is  an  en- 
largement of  Colossians  without  addition  of 
thought,  though  with  a  redundancy  of  words. 
The  letter  has  been  accused  of  displaying  a 
style  of  thought  and  language  unworthy  of 
the  Apostle  Paul.  Many  have  found  refer- 
ences to  phases  of  Gnosticism  not  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  of  Paul.  The  Tiibingen 
school  found  not  only  references  to  late  Gnos- 
ticism, but  even   thought  the  writer  was  in- 


172  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

fluenced  by  Montanus.  They  thought  that 
the  tendency  of  the  letter  was  to  unite  the 
yet  divided  parties  of  the  Church  by  a  union 
of  faith  and  love,  and  by  mutual  concessions. 
The  relationship  of  the  Epistle  with  First 
Peter  has  also  been  a  subject  of  dispute. 
The  similarity  is  not  disputed;  but  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  Ephesians  presupposed  a 
knowledge  of  First  Peter  or  First  Peter  a 
knowledge  of  Ephesians.  Those  who  deny 
the  genuineness  are  inclined  to  the  former 
supposition. 

§41.    COLOSSIANS. 

Mayerhoff'  was  the  first  to  dispute  the 
genuineness  of  this  Epistle.  He  thought  that 
both  the  language  and  the  teaching  were  un- 
Pauline.  Baur  saw  in  the  Epistle  the  attempt 
of  a  pupil  of  Paul  to  bring  the  latter  into 
harmony  with  the  Logos  doctrine  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  He  thought  that  the — to 
him — evident  references  of  the  Epistle  to 
Gnostic  ideas  proved  it  to  have  originated 
with   one  who  was  impregnated  with  Gnosti- 

^  In  Der  Brief  an  die  Kolosser. 


PHILEMON.  l']^ 

cism.  Bwald  supposed  that  Timothy  wrote 
the  letter  after  conversing  with  Paul,  and 
thus  explained  the  differences  between  this 
letter  and  others  unquestionably  Pauline.  A 
still  different  form  of  criticism  is  that  of  Holtz- 
mann.  He  thinks'  it  possible  to  distinguish 
a  genuine  letter  of  Paul  to  the  Colossians  in 
our  Epistle,  which  was  imitated  by  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and  inter- 
polated by  him  so  as  to  make  up  our  present 
Colossians.  This  idea  he  supports  by  the  at- 
tempt to  show  that  Colossians  lacks  true 
connection  of  thought.  Bleek  supposed  that 
Paul  had  dictated  the  letter  to  Timothy, 
which  reminds  one  of  Ewald's  hypothesis 
mentioned  above. 

§42.  Philemon. 

The  close  relationship  between  this  short 
letter  and  Colossians  is  universally  admitted  ; 
but  Baur,  who  rejected  Colossians,  did  not 
spare  even  this  Epistle.  He  held  it  to  be  an 
undeveloped  romance,  intended  to  teach  that 
compensation  is  found  in  Christianity  for  all 

^  Kritik  der  Eplieser-  unci  Kolosserbrief. 


174  THE  HIGHER  CRITIC  ISM. 

our  earthly  losses.  Holtzmann  thinks  that 
verses  4-6  are  additions  by  the  author  of  the 
letter  to  the  Bphesians.  Weizsacker  thinks  it 
is  intended  as  an  illustrative  representation  of 
a  new  doctrine  in  reference  to  the  Christian 
life,  and  that  the  very  name  Onesimus  indi- 
cates the  allegorical  character  of  the  letter. 
The  genuineness  of  the  letter  is  universally 
conceded  to-day;  and  it  is  held  to  be  one  of 
many  similar  letters  which  Paul  must  have 
written  to  friends,  but  which  have  been  lost. 

§  43.   Philippians. 

The  Tiibingen  school  led  the  way  in  pro- 
nouncing this  letter  spurious.  A  principal  ar- 
gument was  its  supposed  Gnostic  ideas,  and 
especially  its  presumed  relation  to  the  Valen- 
tinian  Gnosticism.  The  usual  "tendency"  to 
conciliation  of  the  divided  parties  of  the 
Church  is  here  assumed  to  exist;  and  Schweg- 
ler  even  saw  in  the  two  women  of  chapter 
iv,  2,  typical  representations  of  the  Pauline 
and  anti-Pauline  parties.  One  by  one,  how- 
ever, all  critics  have  come  over  to  the  defense 
of  its  genuineness,  except  two  or  three.     Yet 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  1 75 

there  are  those  who  feel  that  there  is  a  decided 
difference  between  the  Paulinism  of  this  and 
some  of  the  older  letters ;  and  this  acknowl- 
edged fact  is  one  of  the  arguments  upon  which 
the  few  who  still  reject  the  Epistle  depend. 

§  44.  The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

The  question  of  the  genuineness  of  these 
epistles  is  interwoven  with  that  of  a  second 
Roman  imprisonment  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 
The  majority  maintain  that  there  is  no  period 
in  the  life  of  Paul,  as  it  is  known  to  us,  when 
these  letters  could  have  been  written.  Those, 
therefore,  who  would  defend  their  Pauline 
origin,  suppose  that  Paul  was  released  from 
his  first  imprisonment,  spent  several  years  in 
travels  and  preaching,  and  was  subsequently 
arrested,  imprisoned,  and  executed.  Such  a 
supposition,  they  claim,  has  reasonable  his- 
torical evidence  in  its  favor.  Others  hold 
that  the  supposition  of  a  second  imprison- 
ment is  insufiiciently  supported,  and  hence 
deny  the  genuineness  of  these  epistles,  or,  if 
convinced  on  other  grounds  of  their  Pauline 
origin,  undertake   to  show  how  the  situation 


176  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

presupposed  in  them  fits  into  the,  to  us, 
known  life  of  Paul. 

But  the  critics  have  found  other  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  accepting  these  epistles. 
Schleiermacher,  who  rejected  only  First  Tim- 
othy, thought  that  Epistle  was  a  compilation 
from  Second  Timothy  and  Titus.  As  criti- 
cism advanced,  it  was  made  plain  that  these 
letters  attacked  errors,  and  presupposed  an 
advancement  in  ecclesiastical  organization  not 
hinted  at  in  the  other  Pauline  epistles.  It 
was  further  admitted  that  the  letters  con- 
tained language  and  ideas  peculiar  to  them- 
selves. Some  undertook  to  show  that  they 
were  composed  by  some  immediate  disciple  of 
Paul,  perhaps  by  Luke. 

Baur  supposed  that  they  were  written  in 
the  second  century  in  the  name  of  Paul,  for 
the  purpose  of  lending  the  weight  of  his  name 
to  opposition  against  certain  Gnostic  heresies. 
He  also  supposed  that  it  was  the  necessity 
of  protection  against  these  same  heresies 
which  made  their  recommendations  concern- 
ing Church  government  necessary.  Thus,  ac- 
cording to    his   opinion,   about    the  year    150 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  I  77 

A.    D.    furnished   the   only   conditions   out    of 
which  such  letters  could  spring. 

The  attempt  to  declare  these  letters  spuri- 
ous has  met  with  arguments  so  cogent  on  the 
other  side  that  many  have  proposed  to  show 
that  one  or  all  of  them  are  combinations  of 
genuine  Pauline  documents,  with  additions  by 
a  pupil  of  the  great  apostle.  Gran  thinks 
this  was  done  by  the  aid  of  remarks  by  Paul 
in  letters  written  to  their  author,  together 
with  recollections  of  his  utterances  in  con- 
versation. The  attempts  at  discovering  genu- 
ine elements  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  a  con- 
cession in  favor  of  their  Pauline  o'rigin.  But 
there  are  few  who  would  not  admit  that  there 
are  serious  difficulties  in  supposing  that  the 
letters  were  written  entire  by  Paul ;  yet  there 
are  many  who,  recognizing  these  difficulties, 
refuse  to  reject  the  epistles  on  their  account. 

§45.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  principal  critical  question  in  connec- 
tion with  this  Epistle  pertains  to  the  author- 
ship. Opinions  continued  to  waver  until 
Bleek — in   his    work   of    1828,  Der   Brief  an 


178  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

die  Hebrder — settled  the  question  against  the 
Pauline  authorship  for  almost  all  German 
critics.  Weiss  {Lehrbiich  der  Einleitimg  in  das 
Neue  Testament)  claims  the  following  argu- 
ments as  decisive  against  the  Pauline  author- 
ship :  The  letter  gives  no  hint  of  a  claim  to 
have  been  written  by  Paul.  It  has  no  address 
at  the  beginning,  as  do  all  Paul's  letters.  The 
author  does  not  call  himself  an  apostle  nor 
assert  apostolic  authority.  Paul  always  in- 
sisted that  he  had  not  received  his  gospel 
from  man,  but  direct  from  God;  whereas,  the 
writer  of  Hebrews  (chapter  ii,  3  f.)  speaks  of 
himself  as  a  disciple  of  the  primitive  apostles. 
The  whole  plan  of  the  letter  is  different  from 
the  Pauline.  The  doctrinal  and  the  practical 
portions  are  not  separated  as  by  Paul,  but 
interwoven.  No  New  Testament  document  is 
so  free  from  Hebraisms,  and  written  in  such 
pure  Greek.  While  Paul  struggles  to  express 
himself,  the  language  of  Hebrews  flows  on 
with  great  smoothness ;  and  the  evidences  of 
rhetorical  skill  are  in  plain  contrast  with  the 
dialectic  brevity  of  Paul.  The  great  apostle 
generally  quotes  from   the  LXX,  but  always 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  1 79 

betrays  an  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew 
text,  while  the  writer  of  Hebrews  evidently 
does  not  know  the  Hebrew.  While  Paul  cites 
freely  from  memory,  the  writer  of  Hebrews 
quotes  so  accurately  that  it  must  have  been 
copied  from  an  open  book. 

The  fact  that  Paul  argues  against  the  per- 
manency of  Judaism  has  led  many  to  trace 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  either  to  him  or  to 
one  of  his  disciples.  But  the  opponents  of 
the  Pauline  origin  of  the  letter  point  out  that, 
while  in  the  undoubted  letters  of  Paul  he  as- 
sumes that,  however  perfect  the  law  was,  it 
was  never  intended  to  be  more  than  tempo- 
rary, the  writer  of  Hebrews  argues  that  it 
is  temporary  because  imperfect.  They  deny 
the  identity  of  the  doctrines  of  Hebrews 
with  those  found  in  Paul's  letters.  Having 
denied  the  Pauline  authorship,  recourse  has 
been  had  to  the  supposition  that  it  was  writ- 
ten by  a  pupil  of  Paul,  as  Luke,  or  Clement 
of  Rome ;  others  have  thought  of  Mark  or 
Aquila.  Luther,  and  with  him  are  many 
others,  attributed  the  letter  to  Apollos.  Weiss 
favors    the    hypothesis    which    attributes    the 


l8o  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

letter  to  Barnabas.  He  thinks  that  his  birth 
in  Cyprus  wouM  account  for  the  evidences  of 
Alexandrian  culture  found  in  the  Epistle, 
while  his  Levitical  extraction  explains  his 
knowledge  of  the  ritual  service  of  the  Jews, 
and  the  emphasis  he  places  upon  it.  His 
companionship  with  Paul  will  explain  the 
similarity  of  the  Epistle  to  those  of  Paul. 
Many  critics  agree  with  Weiss.  It  is  inter- 
estinof  to  note  that  criticism  now  inclines  to 
the  opinion  that  the  ritual  service  of  Hebrews 
is  not  that  of  the  temple,  but  of  the  taber- 
nacle. Especially  does  Von  Soden  insist  on 
this  view. 


Part  IV. 

ESTIMATE  OF  RESULTS. 

§46. 

The  purpose  of  this  book  is  neither  the 
defense  nor  the  denunciation  of  the  higher 
criticism;  nor  did  its  purpose  admit  of  an  at- 
tempt to  refute  the  arguments  by  which  the 
conclusions  recorded  were  sustained.  Our 
aim  has  been  to  state  the  critical  problems 
and  their  proposed  solutions,  without  any  at- 
tempt to  estimate  their  importance,  correct- 
ness, or  tendency.  Yet  there  is  one  class  of 
scholars  whose  opinions  and  arguments  we 
have  scarcely  noticed  in  these  pages.  This, 
not  because  they  were  unworthy,  but  because 
they  are  already  well  known.  We  refer,  of 
course,  to  the  so-called  traditionalists.  But 
it  must  not  be  supposed,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  we  have  recorded  the  conclusions  alone 
of  the  skeptical  school.  We  have  given,  so 
far  as  space  would  permit,  the  views  of  every 
grade  of  critic  except  the  traditionalist. 

It  is  difficult  to  find  any  accurate  designa- 


1 82  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

tion  for  the  different  schools  of  critics.  To 
call  them  destructive  only  means  that  they 
destroy  previous  opinions,  and  overlooks  the 
fact  that,  at  the  present  day,  no  critic  is  con- 
tent with  this;  but  all  feel  called  upon  to 
construct  a  theory  in  place  of  every  one  over- 
thrown. The  same  remarks  apply  to  the 
terms  negative  and  positive  as  distinctive  of 
different  schools  of  criticism.  More  nearly 
correct  is  the  distinction  of  radical  and  con- 
servative. This,  however,  overlooks  the  fact 
that  these  two  classes  shade  into  each  other 
until  it  would  be  almost  impossible  to  classify 
under  the  one  category  or  the  other.  It  has 
also  been  proposed  to  apply  the  political  des- 
ignations of  Right,  Left,  and  Center.  But 
the  Center  always  stands  for  a  distinct  policy; 
whereas  those  critics  who  may  not  be  classed 
with  the  Right  or  Left,  can  hardly  be  said  to 
be  guided  by  principles  distinct  from  the  other 
two  parties,  but  are  rather  influenced  by  a 
mixture  of  both.  They  are  not  as  conserva- 
tive as  the  Right,  nor  as  radical  as  the  Left; 
but  they  do  not  differ  from  either  so  much  in 
kind  as  in  degree.     Between^  the  radical  and 


EST  IMA  TE  OF  RESUL  TS.  1 8  3 

the  conservative,  however,  there  is  a  distinct 
difference  in  kind,  at  least  so  far  as  principles 
are  concerned.  The  former  shrink  from  the 
supernatural  in  Scripture ;  the  latter  fully  ad- 
mit it.  The  presumptive  results  of  the  latter 
might  be — although  generally  they  are  not — 
as  radical  as  those  of  the  former,  but  they 
would  not  spring  from  radical  principles. 
Here  lies  the  really  important  difference  be- 
tween the  radical  critic  and  the  conservative. 
It  is  not  in  the  conclusions  they  reach  con- 
cerning the  date  and  authorship  of  a  book, 
but  in  the  principles  which  lead  them  to  their 
conclusions.  In  the  one  case  we  are  robbed 
of  our  Book  and  our  religion  as  well;  in  the 
other,  the  determinative  criteria  as  to  the 
Book  leave  our  faith  intact.  Now,  it  is  just 
here  that  the  critic  whom  we  w^ould  call 
mixed  conservative-radical  finds  his  place. 
He  leans  with  his  heart  to  the  old  faith,  but 
his  intellect  leads  him  to  cut  away  its  founda- 
tions. And  his  results  will  be  as  mixed  as 
his  principles,  since,  in  fact,  he  is  governed  in 
part  by  subjective  considerations  in  what  he 
retains  of  the  Bible. 


184  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

The  general  opinion  perhaps  is,  that  Ger- 
many is  the  home  of  the  most  radical  criti- 
cism. If  we  compare  Germany  with  England 
this  may  be  true,  and  still  more  so  if  com- 
pared with  America.  For  the  staunchest  de- 
fenders of  the  faith  in  Germany  are  as  radical 
in  their  criticism  of  the  Bible  as  our  most 
objectionable  critics  in  America.  But  if  we 
compare  Germany  with  France,  Switzerland, 
and  Holland,  we  shall  find  the  former  far  more 
conservative.'  Not  to  mention  the  fact  that 
the  French,  Swiss,  and  Dutch  scholars  are 
less  original,  it  must  be  confessed  that  they 
are  far  less  sober  than  their  German  neigh- 
bors. They  seem  to  delight  in  extremes,  per- 
haps under  the  impression  that  the  more  a 
position  diverges  from  that  commonly  accepted 
the  greater  the  evidence  of  scholarship.  It  is 
the  usual  error  of  imitators.  The  one  who 
has  made  a  profound  investigation  of  any 
•subject  may  reach  erroneous  conclusions ;  but 
he  generally  does  not  draw  conclusions  beyond 
the  warrant  of  the  facts  he  supposes  himself 
to  have  discovered. 


^vSee,  for  example,  §38. 


ESTIMA  TE  OF  RESUL  TS.  1 8 5 

As  to  the  value  of  the  conchisions  reached 
by  the  critics  it  is  difficult  to  express  an  opin- 
ion without  incurring  the  risk  of  opposition. 
One  thing  is  practically  demonstrated  in  the 
preceding  pages;  namely,  that  the  variations 
of  opinion  among  the  critics  themselves  are 
so  great  as  to  suggest  the  propriety  of  being 
in  no  haste  to  give  up  the  traditional  view  of 
the  date  and  authorship  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  There  are  very  few  positive  conclu- 
sions upon  which  the  critics  agree  among 
themselves,  and  it  looks  as  though  it  were 
hopeless  to  expect  agreement  in  the  future. 
The  arguments  of  one  are  ignored  or  opposed 
by  another  of  equal  ability,  although  they 
may  agree  in  their  conclusions.  In  other 
cases  they  agree  upon  the  facts  involved,  but 
differ  in  their  interpretation  of  them  and  as 
to  the  inferences  to  be  drawn.  What  seems 
to  one  the  height  of  wisdom,  appears  to  an- 
other the  depth  of  absurdity.  Such  differ- 
ences among  the  giant  intellects  will  cause 
the  ordinary  man  to  despair  of  reaching  a 
safe  conclusion,  and  will  drive  the  practical 
man  to  adhere  with  greater  firmness  than  ever 


1 86  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

to  what  lias  been  hitherto  found  a  good  work- 
ing hypothesis,  allowing  those  who  have  time 
and  inclination  to  concern  themselves  with 
these  theoretical  questions.  • 

On  the  other  hand,  while  opposing  with  all 
our  power  the  love  of  negation  so  prominent 
in  many  critics,  and  the  skeptical  principles 
of  those  who  deny  the  supernatural  in  the 
Bible,  a  hearty  welcome  should  be  extended 
to  all  reverent  Scriptural  investigation,  even 
though  the  investigator  may  not  always  reach 
the  conclusions  we  accept.  To  cast  the  odhmi 
theologiciim  upon  those  who  profoundly,  mi- 
nutely, and  in  the  proper  spirit,  study  the 
Bible  to  elicit  its  secrets,  would  be  to  subject 
the  world  once  more  to  the  rulership  of  eccle- 
siastical authority.  The  reverent  study  of  the 
Bible  may  be  safely  trusted  to  result  in  plac- 
ing it  higher,  not  lower,  in  the  esteem  of  men, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  it  will  freshen 
the  soul  with  new  revelations  of  truth  from 
God.  The  great  danger  is  that  Bible  study  with 
scientific  appliances  will  be  content  with  its 
science,  and  not  go  on  to  the  study  of  its  practi- 
cal and  spiritual  truth  for  daily  religious  needs. 


ESTIMATE  OF  RESULTS.  1 87 

In  estimating  the  value  of  the  presumptive 
results  of  higher  criticism,  it  must  not  only  be 
remembered  that  most  of  them  are  merely 
presumptive,  but  also  that  there  are  men  of 
profound  learning  who  dispute  almost  the  en- 
tire system  of  critical  conclusions.  They  have 
weighed  the  arguments,  and  found  them  in- 
sufficient ;  they  have  critically  examined  the 
Bible  for  themselves,  and  find  the  strongest 
evidences  of  the  truth  of  the  traditional 
theory.  One  might  not  be  convinced  that 
these  scholars  are  right ;  but,  at  least,  one 
must  admit  that  conclusions  so  supported  by 
such  men  are  entitled  to  respectful  considera- 
tion. If  we  demand  that  the  critics  have  a 
hearing,  fair  play  requires  that  the  opposing 
theories  be  not  summarily  discarded  as  un- 
scholarly,  and  especially  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  most  of  the  traditional  views  have  the 
weight  of  great  critical  names  in  their  sup- 
port. Almost  every  new  theory,  however 
plausible  in  its  entirety  at  first,  is  liable  to 
subsequent  modification,  not  to  say  rejection. 

It  is  a  serious  question  whether  the  con- 
clusions of  criticism  may  properly  be  left  to 


1 88  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

stand  or  fall  by  critical  considerations  alone. 
The  Christian  should  not  lightly  yield  a  point 
which  affects  his  faith,  even  when  the  ad- 
verse conclusion  seems  to  be  supported  by 
sufficient  argument.  It  is  impossible  for  the 
genuine  Christian  to  be  indifferent  as  to  the 
outcome  of  a  dispute  concerning  his  faith  or 
its  foundations.  While  it  is  not  justifiable  to 
give  one's  self  up  blindly  to  a  creed,  some 
things  must  be  regarded  as  fixed  if  chaos  is  to 
be  prevented  in  thought  and  life.  No  one  can 
think  without  presuppositions.  The  presup- 
positions of  Christianity  may  as  scientifically 
be  made  the  starting-point  of  inquiry  as  those 
of  negation  or  infidelity.  We  must  suppose 
the  essentials  of  Christianity  to  be  either  true 
or  not  true.  To  attempt  to  leave  this  an  open 
question  is  practically  to  deny,  although  it  may 
be  "but  tentatively,  that  Christianity  is  true. 

That  form  of   argument,  therefore,  which 

appeals  to  Christ  as  authority  on  this  subject 

is  legitimate  if  properly  employed.'     If  Jesus 

has  spoken  directly  or  indirectly  on  the  ques- 

^  See  in  particular  ElHcott's  ''  Cliristus  Comprobator." 


ES  TIM  A  TE  OF  RESUL  TS.  1 8  9 

tions  at  issue,  the  Christian  must  hear  and 
heed.  This  nearly  all  admit,  but  some  deny 
that  he  has  spoken.  There  are  critics  who 
deny  the  omniscience  and  even  the  superiority 
of  Christ's  knowledge.  They  do  not  hesitate 
to  say  that  Jesus  was  ignorant  of  the  facts 
as  to  the  authorship  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and,  with  his  fellow-countrymen, 
took  their  reputed  for  their  real  authors. 
Others  suppose  that  he  knew  the  facts,  but 
that  he  merely  accommodated  his  language 
to  the  belief  of  his  hearers.  The  difficulty  of 
this  theory  is  that  it  does  not  recognize  the 
frankness  of  speech  which  characterized  the 
utterances  of  our  Lord.  Jesus  was  accus- 
tomed to  expose,  not  to  leave  untouched,  the 
errors  of  the  Jews.  Another  form  of  this 
theory  is,  that  by  a  metonymy  Jesus  may 
have  merely  spoken  of  a  work  by  its  reputed 
author.  Whether  all  the  references  of  our 
Lord  to  the  Old  Testament  can  be  thus  ex- 
plained is  a  question  each  must  decide  for 
himself.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that,  with 
all  the  facts  before  him,  he  would  have  left 


I  go  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

them  in  such  egregious  error  as  to  their  history 
as  the  higher  critics  suppose  to  have  pre- 
vailed among  the  Jews. 

One  of  the  most  far-reaching  conclusions 
of  the  critics  is  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible 
erred  in  some  or  many  of  their  statements  of 
scientific,  historic,  and  psychological  fact.^ 
They  deny  the  inerrancy  of  the  Bible,  and 
affirm  that  as  long  as  these  errors  are  not  as 
to  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  the  value  of 
the  Bible  is  not  thereby  diminished.  They 
argue  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  book  of  science, 
of  history,  or  of  philosophy,  but  of  religion. 
It  can  be  expected  to  be  correct,  therefore, 
only  so  long  as  it  speaks  on  religious  themes. 
More  radical  critics,  however,  do  not  hesitate 
to  say  that  the  Bible  contains  errors  even  in 
its  religious  and  moral  utterances,  and  that 
therefore  reason  must  be  employed  in  distin- 
guishing the  true  from  the  false.  Some  say 
that  the  Bible  not  only  does  not  claim  per- 
fection for  itself,  but  even  denies  its  own  per- 
fection."    Most  are  content  to  account  for  any 

'  See  Evans  and  Smith's  "  Biblical  'Scholarship  and 
Inspiration." 

'^Mead,  Supernatural  Revelation. 


ESTIMATE  OF  RESULTS.  1 91 

imperfection  in  religious  utterances  on  the 
ground  that  revelation  was  progressive,  and 
that  the  earlier  must  of  necessity  be  defective. 
Those  who  insist  on  error  in  these  earlier  re- 
ligious and  moral  precepts,  either  do  not  be- 
lieve in  their  true  revelation,  or  explain  by 
saying  that  God  adapted  his  requirements  to 
the  stage  of  advancement  of  the  people. 

Closely  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  in- 
errancy is  that  of  complete  and  uniform  in- 
spiration. Very  few  theologians,  and  none  of 
the  critics,  believe  to-day  in  verbal  inspira- 
tion; but  the  majority  conform  their  doctrine 
of  inspiration  to  their  idea  of  the  degree  of 
truth  or  error  in  the  Bible.  Many  critics, 
however,  remand  the  question  of  inspiration 
to  dogmatics,  and  feel  called  upon  to  investi- 
gate the  human  conditions  alone  under  which 
the  various  books  of  the  Bible  as  well  as  the 
canon  came  into  existence.  They  naturally 
come  to  ignore,  in  some  cases  to  deny  entirely, 
the  Divine  element  in  the  origination  of  the 
Bible. 

Too  much  emphasis  can  not  be  laid  upon 
the  fact  that,  as  the    Bible   is   our  only  suffi- 


192  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

cient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  the  chief  study 
of  the  Book  should  ever  proceed  from  and  re- 
turn to  this  starting  point.  The  question  is 
legitimate  as  to  what  authority  or  value  any 
portion  of  the  Bible  possesses.  To  some  we 
may  attach  more,  to  other  parts  less ;  but  when 
we  make  such  questions  our  principal  business 
in  the  study  of  the  Word  of  God,  we  pervert  a 
means  and  make  it  an  end.  Criticism,  so  far 
as  it  concerns  the  Christian,  is  the  handmaid, 
not  the  mistress.  If  criticism  is  practiced  for 
the  purpose  of  making  the  Bible  more  avail- 
able for  practical,  devotional  use,  it  is  a  bless- 
ing. If  practiced  for  its  own  sake,  it  is  likely 
to  lead  astray.  And  as  long  as  the  Church 
concerns  itself  to  practice  the  plain,  unques- 
tioned teachings  of  the  Bible,  criticism,  even 
of  the  most  radical  kind,  can  do  no  harm. 
The  best  preventive  of  spiritual  defection  is 
experience.  Those  who  have  tested  the  prom-, 
ises  of  the  Word,  and  found  them  true,  are 
not  likely  to  be  disturbed  by  any  assaults  upon 
the  Scripture,  nor  by  any  reconstruction  of 
theories  concerning  it.  But  if  any  one  is 
more    inclined    to    defend    the    Bible    against 


ESTIMATE  OF  RESULTS.  1 93 

criticism  than  to  practice  its  precepts  and 
enter  into  the  inheritance  of  its  promised 
blessings,  he  is  in  as  dangerous  a  position  as 
the  most  skeptical  critic;  for,  although  theo- 
retically a  believer,  he  is  practically  an  infidel, 
in  spite  of  his  belief.  There  is  little  danger 
from  the  most  extreme  conclusions  of  criti- 
cism as  long  as  saints  are  common.  There 
is  far  more  to  be  feared  from  a  dead  ortho- 
doxy. The  chief  cause  of  alarm  in  connec- 
tion with  Biblical  criticism  is  not  in  its 
methods  nor  in  its  conclusions,  but  in  its 
tendency  to  make  the  Bible  a  book  to  be 
studied,  not  practiced.  Investigation  there 
must  be;  and  investigation  should  be  so  con- 
ducted that  our  faith  may  more  perfectly  con- 
form to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  our  practice 
to  the  teachings  of  his  Word. 
13 


Part  V. 

IF  THE  CRITICS  ARE  RIGHT,  WHAT? 

§47.  The  Doctrine  of  Inerrancy. 

The  Christian  thinker  may  assume  either 
one  of  two  attitudes  towards  those  results  of 
Biblical  criticism  which  contradict  traditional 
opinion — that  of  hostility,  or  that  of  accom- 
modation to  the  new  situation.  The  former 
would  require  him  to  counteract  argument 
with  argument  more  cogent.  The  latter 
would  not  demand  acceptance  of  the  sup- 
posed results,  but  lead  him  to  inquire  what 
will  be  the  consequences  if,  in  the  end,  these 
results  come  to  be  accepted,  and  what  sort  of 
a  Christianity  that  would  be  which  would  re- 
main. And  this  is  an  inquiry  which  the 
Christian  must  make.  An  unbeliever  might 
entertain  a  purely  scholarly  interest  in  the 
problems  of  higher  criticism;  but  the  Chris- 
tian   is    conscious   of    a    practical    interest   as 

well.     There    may   be  processes  of  scientific 
194 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  INERRANCY,  1 95 

investigation  whose  results  are  so  remotely 
connected  with  our  practical  life  that  the 
Christian  need  have  no  care  as  to  the  out- 
come; but  not  such  is  the  scientific  investi- 
gation of  the  Scriptures.  The  Bible  professes 
to  be  at  least  the  record  of  God's  revelation 
to  man.  If  it  does  not  contain  trustworthy 
accounts  of  the  words  spoken,  the  deeds  per- 
formed, and  the  spirit  manifested  by  our  Lord, 
then  we  have  no  account  of  these.  If  we 
have  not  here  a  portraiture  of  the  effects 
which  the  forces  of  Christianity  may  naturally 
be  expected  to  produce  in  the  lives  of  the 
followers  of  Jesus,  then  we  have  no  authori- 
tative standard  of  Christian  life.  The  Chris- 
tian can  not  therefore  divest  himself  of  the 
consciousness  of  a  profound  personal  interest 
in  the  results  of  critical  inquiry  into  the  ori- 
gin and  authority  of  the  Bible.  The  capa- 
bility in  any  one  of  such  disinterestedness 
would  prove  that  Christianity  is  of  small  value 
to  him. 

The  Christian,  then,  must  interrogate  criti- 
cism concerning  its  practical  consequences. 
If  he  finds  that  it  is  sweeping  away  the  foun- 


196  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

dations  of  his  faith,  he  must  prevent  it  if  he 
can,  or  failing,  mourn  over  the  ruins  of  his 
cherished  beliefs.  But  if  he  finds  the  con- 
clusions of  the  critics  consistent  with  the  vigor 
and  energy  of  Christian  experience  and  life, 
even  though  requiring  certain  readjustments, 
he  may  let  criticism  go  on  its  way  with  perfect 
unconcern,  since,  although  it  may  cause  him 
some  inconvenience,  it  leaves  him  in  posses- 
sion of  what  he  holds  dear. 

A  comparatively  limited  knowledge  of  Bib- 
lical criticism  will  suffice  to  remind  us  that 
the  critics  are  not  all  of  one  kind.  Their 
principles,  methods,  and  moral  and  intellec- 
tual qualifications  differ  greatly.  It  is  custom- 
ary to  classify  them  popularly  as  radical  and 
conservative;  but  there  is  no  such  distinct  line 
of  demarkation  as  this  classification  indicates. 
It  would  be  better  to  designate  them  as  rad- 
ical, mixed,  and  conservative.  We  can  not 
here  consider  the  radicals,  because  it  is  plain 
that  their  principles  would  overthrow  Chris- 
tianity in  any  of  its  present  prevailing  forms. 
Nor  can  we  deal  with  the  mixed  class,  since 
they  have  no  harmonious  principles  of  proced- 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  INERRANCY.  1 97 

lire,  leaning  toward  the  radicals  with  their 
judgment,  and  toward  the  conservatives  with 
their  hearts.  We  confine  ourselves  to  the  con- 
servatives, whom  we  further  distinguish  from 
those  critics  who  always  reach  traditional  con- 
clusions. 

The  gist  of  the  entire  question  is  the  author- 
ity of  the  Bible.  It  has  always  been  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  Protestantism  that  the 
Church  is  neither  the  first  nor  the  final  author- 
ity in  matters  of  faith  and  practice.  It  is  the 
very  essence  of  rationalism  to  give  to  reason 
the  final  decision. 

There  would  seem  to  remain,  therefore,  to 
the  non-rationalistic  Protestant  only  the  re- 
course of  appeal  to  the  founders  of  Christian- 
ity. But  for  such  an  appeal  we  must  have  a 
record  in  which  we  can  confide.  There  are 
those,  therefore,  who  affirm  that  the  Bible  is 
infallible  in  all  its  parts,  and  that  any  error 
would  invalidate  the  entire  Book;  that  while 
it  is  not  a  book  of  science,  history,  or  psy- 
chology, whenever  it  touches  these  points  its 
statements  are  absolutely  correct.  On  the 
other   hand,  exceedingly   conservative    critics 


198  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

admit  the  existence  of  errors  in  dates,  num- 
bers, sequence  of  events,  names  of  persons 
and  places,  statements  of  natural  science,  and 
the  like.  They  admit  that  writers  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible  labored  under  misappre- 
hensions, and  yet  placed  these  upon  record 
in  conjunction  with  other  statements  of  exact 
truth.  Now,  the  question  is.  Do  these  con- 
cessions destroy  the  authority  of  the  Bible? 
The  rationalist  says  they  do,  and  rejoices  that 
the  divine  faculty  of  reason  in  man  is  to  take 
the  place  of  an  infallible  pope  and  an  infal- 
lible book.  The  ultra-traditionalist  agrees 
with  the  rationalist,  with  an  ''if;"  but  he  de- 
nies the  existence  of  the  errors,  and  thus  saves 
himself  from  the  rationalist's  conclusions. 

The  conservative  critic  says  that  these 
concessions  do  not  destroy  the  authority  of 
the  Bible,  because  they  .do  not  touch  the 
points  upon  which  the  Bible  professes  to  be 
authority.  These  critics  distinguish  between 
the  religio-ethical  and  the  other  portions  of 
the  Bible,  and  affirm  that  the  Bible  was  not 
given  to  teach  science,  history,  etc.,  but  to  be 
a   rule   of   faith    and   practice.      They  affirm 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  INERRANCY.  1 99 

that  since  no  error  has  ever  yet  been  demon- 
strated in  those  particulars  in  which  revela- 
tion is  necessary,  we  need  not  be  troubled  if 
there  are  occasional  errors  elsewhere.  Most 
of  them,  moreover,  claim  that  the  demon- 
strable errors  in  history,  etc.,  are  so  few  or  so 
unimportant  that  to  reject  the  Bible  on  their 
account  would  be  like  rejecting  the  sun  be- 
cause there  are  spots  on  it.  In  their  princi- 
pal contention  they  are  supported  by  the  fact 
that  the  great  evangelical  Confessions  make 
the  Bible  solely  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
And  this  is  what  the  Bible  says  of  itself. 
(2  Timothy  iii,  15-17.)  Nor  do  the  great 
Confessions  assert  inerrancy  or  infallibility 
except  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice.  Two 
less  important  Creeds  teach  the  absolute  in- 
errancy of  the  Bible — the  Creed  of  the  New 
Hampshire  Baptists  (1833),  which  says  that 
the  Bible  ''has  absolute  truth,  without  any 
mixture  of  error  for  its  matter;"  and,  by  im- 
plication, the  Confession  of  the  Evangelical 
Free  Church  of  Geneva  (1848),  which  says: 
"We  believe  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  en- 
tirely inspired  of  God  in  all  their  parts." 


200  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

There  are  many  who  are  not  ready  to  give 

up  their   Bibles   in   the   event  that  it  should 

finally  turn  out  that  the  zoology,  botany,  and 

other   non-religious    utterances   of    the    Bible 

are  demonstrated  to  be  in  some  rare  instances 

inaccurate.     Such  a  conclusion  is  too  weighty 

for  such  premises.     We  would  not  assert  the 

existence  of  errors   in   the    Bible;    but  if  any 

one  else  does,  we  would  deny  the  rationalistic 

conclusion  that  it  is  therefore  a  purely  human 

book. 

§  48.  Inspiration. 

That  the  doctrines  of  the  absolute  inerrancy 
of  the  Scripture  and  of  its  inspiration  are  inti- 
mately connected  is  beyond  doubt.  And  here 
again  the  principles  of  the  radicals  and  those 
of  the  ultra-traditionalists  are  strangely  par- 
allel. If  you  could  convince  the  former  that 
the  Bible  is  an  errorless  book,  they  would  at 
once  admit  its  entire  divine  inspiration.  The 
latter  hold  to  its  inerrancy,  and  hence  to  in- 
spiration in  every  part  and  particle.  Con- 
sistently held,  this  theory  can,  at  most,  allow 
to  the  human  subjects  of  inspiration  the  free- 
dom of  amanuenses,  who  must  write  exactly 


INSPIRATIOuV.  20 1 

what,  and  only  what,  is  dictated.  No  room  is 
left  for  the  expression  of  the  writer's  individ- 
uality, and,  of  course,  none  for  error.  Very 
few  would  venture  to-day  to  hold  to  inspiration 
in  so  extreme  a  form  as  this.  It  is  now  gener- 
ally admitted  that  the  Scripture  writings  dis- 
play the  individuality  of  their  writers.  The 
doctrine  of  inspiration  may  still  maintain,  how- 
ever, that  these  peculiarities  do  not  amount 
to  errors,  and  that  any  true  doctrine  of  inspi- 
ration at  least  required  that  the  Inspiring 
Spirit  should  guard  the  writers  from  record- 
ing any  error.  And  this  is,  briefly  stated, 
what  the  believers  in  inerrancy  claim.  In 
their  judgment,  the  doctrines  of  inspiration 
and  inerrancy  stand  or  fall  together. 

If  the  Book  is  not  in  all  its  parts  the  pro- 
duct of  direct  divine  inspiration,  it  can  not  be 
inerrant.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  in- 
errant  in  all  its  parts,  it  can  not  be  inspired. 
If  it  is  not  inspired  and  inerrant  in  all  its 
parts,  it  is  in  no  part  trustworthy.  One  ad- 
herent of  this  view  illustrated  his  view  by 
saying  that  Tray  was  a  good  dog,  but  because 
Tray  was  found  in  bad  company  he  was  shot; 


202  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

tliat  is,  if  we  find  truth  mixed  with  error  in 
the  Bible,  even  the  truth  is  rendered  uncer- 
tain. This  would  certainly  be  the  case  if  we 
supposed  every  part  of  the  Bible  to  be  equally 
inspired.  For  if  the  Holy  Spirit  could  be  sup- 
posed to  inspire  the  proclamation  of  one  error, 
we  could  not  be  sure,  except  by  a  subjective 
test,  that  he  had  not  inspired  much  error. 
Now  just  here  is  where  the  conservative  critic 
meets  his  chief  difficulty.  He  can  not  believe 
in  the  absolute  inerrancy  of  the  Bible,  although 
he  finds  it  in  the  main  so  capable  of  bearing 
the  most  exact  scrutiny  as  to  indicate  the 
greatest  care  on  the  part  of  the  authors. 

He  can  not  believe  that  the  errors  are 
placed  on  record  by  inspiration,  but  is  com- 
pelled to  attribute  them  to  human  infirmity. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  finds  prophets  and 
apostles  claiming  inspiration,  or  at  least  reve- 
lation, and  he  is  in  no  wise  disposed  to  deny 
their  claim.  He  further  asserts  that  the  Bible 
nowhere  gives  us  an  exact  account  of  the  na- 
ture, degree,  or  extent  of  inspiration ;  and  that 
all  these  have  been  fixed  by  uninspired  men. 
Hence  he  maintains  the  rio^ht  to  examine  the 


INSPIRATION.  203 

phenomena  which  the  Bible  presents,  and  to 
reach  conclusions  divergent  from  those  of  his 
uninspired  predecessors  or  contemporaries. 
The  substance  of  the  conclusions  of  the 
critics  is  that  inspiration,  like  inerrancy,  can 
only  be  predicated  of  those  parts  of  the  Bible 
which  have  to  do  with  faith  and  practice. 
They  do  not  say  nor  intimate  that  other  por- 
tions of  the  Bible  contain  no  truth.  On  the 
contrary,  they  assert  that  these  parts  manifest 
the  greatest  care  to  state  things  as  they  are, 
and  with  a  very  high  degree  of  success. 

The  great  purpose  of  inspiration  undoubt- 
edly was  to  secure  to  the  word  of  the  inspired 
speaker  or  writer  unquestioned  authority.  It 
is  the  doctrine  of  ''  The  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles "  (chap,  xi)  that  one  may 
not  question  the  accuracy  of  the  utterances  of 
one  who  spoke  under  the  influence  of  the 
Prophetic  Spirit.  But  the  question  whether 
any  one  should  be  acknowledged  as  a  prophet 
still  remained  open.  John  exhorts  his  readers 
to  "try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God: 
because  many  false  prophets  have  gone  out 
into  the  world."     And  then  he  makes  the  test 


204  1'^^  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

of  their  true  inspiration,  conformity  in  doctrine 
with  his  teachings  concerning  Jesus  Christ, 
(i  John  iv,  1-3.)  Paul  applies  a  similar  test 
to  the  professed  prophets  of  his  time.  (Gal. 
i,  8,  9.)  The  assumption  both  of  John  and 
Paul  is,  that  inspiration  has  to  do  with  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  with  nothing  else. 
They  based  the  proof  that  any  one  possessed 
prophetic  gifts  upon  the  contents  of  their  gos- 
pel teachings,  not  upon  the  accuracy  of  their 
historical  utterances. 

If,  then,  we  will  not  discredit  the  ascer- 
tained truth  of  the  Bible  because  errors  are 
supposed  also  to  be  found  there,  neither  must 
we  reject  the  inspiration  of  some  parts,  be- 
cause other  parts  are  held  to  be  uninspired. 
And  Paul  and  John,  while  apparently  limiting 
the  results  of  prophetic  inspiration  in  their 
day  to  gospel  questions,  at  the  same  time  give 
us  a  criterion  by  which  to  judge  of  the  in- 
spiration of  any  document.  If  it  contradicts 
the  gospel,  it  is  not  inspired.  And  if  those 
to  whom  Paul  and  John  wrote  could  apply 
this  test,  so  can  we;  for  it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  they  possessed  the  gift  of  the  dis- 


INSPIRATION.  205 

cerning  of  spirits  any  more  than  we  do.  Let 
it  be  observed  that  we  are  not  arguing  in 
favor  of  this  partial  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  that  we  are  trying  to  show  that  we 
need  not  reject  inspiration  entirely  if  the 
critics  rob  us  of  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  all 
parts  of  the  Bible.  The  inspiration  of  those 
portions  of  the  Bible  which  have  to  do  with 
our  faith  and  practice  remains  untouched,  and 
it  assures  us  of  the  authority  of  those  precious 
treasures. 

It  will  be  interesting  to  discover  what  the 
great  Creeds  have  to  say  upon  this  phase  of 
the  controversy.  The  first  and  second  Hel- 
vetic Confessions  seem  to  forbid  such  a  con- 
struction of  inspiration  as  the  conservative 
critics  give  us.  This  is  probably  true  also  of 
the  Irish  Articles  of  Religion  of  161 5,  and 
certainly  of  the  Creed  of  the  New  Hampshire 
Baptists  of  1833,  and  of  the  Evangelical  Free 
Church  of  Geneva  of  1848.  On  the  other  hand, 
while  they  do  not  teach  such  a  distinction  as 
to  inspiration,  there  is  nothing  to  forbid  it  in 
the  French  Confession  of  1559,  the  Belgic  of 
1561  (revised  in  1619),  the  Scotch  of  1560,  the 


206  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Religion  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  the  Articles  of  Religion  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

The  language  of  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion is  such  as  to  admit  of  doubt.  Yet  we  are 
inclined  to  the  opinion  that  it  would  not  for- 
bid the  view  of  inspiration  held  by  the  con- 
servative critic.  In  all  fairness  it  ought  to  be 
said  that  while  not  expressly  forbidden  by 
anything  in  the  above-named  creeds,  their 
framers  probably  held  to  the  view  of  the  ultra- 
traditionalist.  If  they  were  living  now,  how- 
ever, and  were  to  write  in  the  light  of  the 
discussions  of  the  present  and  recent  past,  it 
is  impossible  to  say  where  they  would  range 
themselves.  The  preponderance  of  evidence 
from  the  Creeds  is  apparently  on  the  side  of 
the  traditionalists  as  regards  inspiration ;  but 
it  must  be  borne  also  in  mind  that  the  ques- 
tions to  be  settled  then  were  entirely  different 
from  those  now  engaging  the  Protestant  world. 


date  and  authorship.  207 

§  49.  Date  and  Authorship  of  the  Books 
OF  THE  Bible. 

It  would  seem  at  first  sight  as  though  it 
could  make  no  difference  who  wrote  the  books 
of  the  Bible,  nor  when  they  were  written,  if 
they  were  divinely  inspired.  What  need  has 
one  to  be  an  eyewitness  of  events  if  he  can  se- 
cure perfect  knowledge  of  them  through  inspi- 
ration ?  So  that  on  the  theory  of  the  complete 
inspiration  of  every  part  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures, neither  the  date  nor  the  authorship  of 
the  Biblical  books  would  have  any  effect  upon 
their  authority. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  just  here  that  conserva- 
tive criticism  approaches  nearest  to  tradition- 
alism ;  and  many  a  critic  who  willingly  yields 
the  doctrines  of  inerrancy  and  of  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  all  parts  of  the  Bible,  is  exceed- 
ingly chary  of  admitting  tli^e  composition  of  a 
book  at  a  later  date  than  that  in  which  its 
supposed  author  lived.  The  reason  is  not  far 
to  seek.  The  testimony  of  an  eyewitness  is 
all  the  more  important  in  the  absence  of  in- 
spiration.    Besides,  some  of  the  books  of  the 


2o8  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Bible  profess  to  have  been  written  by  certain 
well-known  characters.  If  they  were  not 
written  by  these  men,  they  are  forgeries. 
Now,  the  radical  critics  remind  us  that  men  of 
sincere  piety  did  in  those  days  sometimes 
write  religious  books  for  the  edification  of  the 
people,  and  attach  the  names  of  Jewish  or 
Christian  celebrities  to  them  to  give  them 
authority.  This  may  be  admitted.  The  end 
was  supposed  to  justify  the  means.  What 
they  wrote  was  important  truth  ;  but  the  peo- 
ple would  not  bow  to  the  authority  of  the  real 
authors.  In  order  to  benefit  their  readers, 
they  committed  pious  frauds  by  attaching  the 
names  of  others  of  greater  repute  than  them- 
selves. 

Thus  the  critics  seek  to  show  that,  forgers 
though  they  were,  these  writers  committed  no 
conscious  wrong.  In  this  way  it  is  indeed 
possible  to  overcome  the  old  argument  that  a 
man  who  would  forge  a  literary  work  could 
not  inculcate  such  pure  doctrines.  Arguments 
contrary  to  the  supposition  of  forgery  throng 
upon  us.  The  men  who  could  write  such 
works   as    those    of   our  canonical   Scriptures 


DATE  AND  AUTHORSHIP.  209 

must  have  been  men  who  needed  not  to  bol- 
ster up  their  writings  with  names  of  men  of 
the  past.  Then,  too,  the  radical  critics  have 
carried  the  matter  so  far  that  both  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  are,  according  to  their  theo- 
ries, largely  made  up  of  forgeries.  Conserva- 
tive critics  do  not  see  how  such  a  wholesale 
system  of  forgery  can  lay  claim  to  be  the 
Word  of  God.  Surely  God  was  not  shut  up 
to  such  a  method  of  revelation.  The  editing 
and  re-editing  of  some  of  these  books  they 
may  admit.  Interpolations  need  not  be  de- 
nied. One  may  even  allow  that  documents 
originally  separate,  one  or  more  of  them  by 
unknown  authors,  might  in  the  course  of  time 
come  to  be  regarded  as  the  production  of  one 
man,  as  is  supposed  to  be  the  case  with  the 
Psalms  and  Isaiah.  But  even  this  hypothesis, 
when  employed  to  explain  so  many  portions  of 
the  Bible,  not  only  fails  to  secure  the  consent 
of  the  judgment,  it  produces  the  feeling  that 
our  confidence  in  the  Bible  must  be  given  up 
if  these  things  are  true  to  the  extent  which 
radical  critics  affirm.  Hence  the  tendency  on 
the  part  of  conservative  critics  to  reduce  the 
14 


210  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

number  of  such  instances  to  the  minimum. 
All  such  suppositions  detract  from  the  dignity 
of  the  Bible,  and  should  not  be  lightly  ac- 
cepted. It  is  so  exceedingly  improbable  that 
God  would  employ  such  methods  of  revela- 
tion to  such  an  extent  that  most  men  would 
be  compelled,  if  they  accept  the  critical  re- 
sults as  facts,  to  yield  their  belief  in  the  Di- 
vine origin  of  the  Book. 

Those  who  hold  to  the  traditional  view  of 
the  date  and  authorship  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  sustain  themselves  in  their 
belief  by  the  attestations  given  in  the  New 
Testament.  We  may  pass  by  what  all  others — 
except  our  Lord — say  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Many  tolerably  conservative  critics  are  in- 
clined to  believe  that  when  Jesus  refers  to 
Isaiah,  or  to  David,  or  to  Moses,  he  does  not 
thereby  mean  to  set  his  seal  upon  their  author- 
ship of  the  books  generally  in  his  day  attrib- 
uted to  them.  One  of  the  most  offensive 
forms  of  this  theory  is  that  which  maintains 
that  Jesus  was  ignorant  of  the  real  authors, 
but  supposed,  with  his  fellow-countrymen,  that 
their  reputed  were  their  real  authors.     Now, 


DATE  AND  AUTHORSHIP.  211 

apart  from  the  doctrine  of  the  omniscience  of 
Jesns,  snch  a  supposition  is  a  blow  at  his  rep- 
utation for  superior  religious  knowledge.     In 
everything  else   he   had    an   insight   into   the 
facts    deeper   than    his    contemporaries.     But 
here  he  is  represented  as  being  as  ignorant  as 
they.     The  theory  in  this  form  is  incompatible 
with  faith  in  Christ  as  we  conceive  it  in  the 
orthodox  Churches  of  to-day.     The  doctrine 
that  he  did  not  attest  the  authorship  of  the  Old 
Testament  books   may  be  tolerated  ;  but  not 
the  argument  just  mentioned  in  support  of  it. 
But  some  who  hold  that  he  did  not  attest 
the  authorship  of  the  Old  Testament  explain 
his  utterances  on  the  supposition  that  he  knew 
•that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch,  nor 
David  the  Psalms,  nor  Isaiah  the  last  twenty- 
seven  chapters  of  Isaiah,  but  that,  knowing 
these  things,  he  accommodated  his  speech  to 
their  belief.     It  is  true  that  one  may  some- 
times, without  mentioning  it,  doubt  the  prem- 
ises of  a  speaker,  yet  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
and  to  prevent  diversion  or  digression  from  the 
main  point,  assume  them.     But  here  again  the 
frequency  of  it  is  the  main  obstacle  to  its  ac- 


212  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ceptance.  It  is  in  plain  contrast  to  the  usual 
frankness  of  Jesus,  and  no  pedagogical  interest 
could  demand  such  a  sacrifice  of  his  own  be- 
lief and  reserve  of  the  truth.  The  theory 
does  not  attribute  to  Jesus  any  deception;  but 
it  presupposes  a  capability  of  knowing  facts  of 
importance,  and  yet  of  systematically  with- 
holding them  from  his  hearers.  It  is  there- 
fore as  much  of  a  reflection  upon  his  charac- 
ter as  the  former  upon  his  intelligence,  and  is 
consequently  even  more  objectionable. 

The  supposition  that  Christ's  utterances 
were  not  meant  for  attestations  of  the  author- 
ship of  the  Old  Testament  books  is  capable 
of  support  in  a  manner  entirely  unobjection- 
able. When  he  referred  to  these  books,  it 
was  the  contents  themselves,  and  not  the 
authors,  upon  which  the  emphasis  was  laid. 
He  may  be  supposed  to  have  employed  me- 
tonymy, to  have  spoken  of  a  work  by  the 
name  of  its  reputed  author.  This  would  not 
imply  either  ignorance  of  the  facts  nor  a 
weak  yielding  through  three  years  of  public 
teaching  to  the  views  of  his  hearers.  Put  in 
this   form,  it   would    not   be    inimical    to   our 


DATE  AND  AUTHORSHIP.  213 

faith.  But  it  would  still  be  a  debatable  ques- 
tion whether  all  the  references  of  our  Lord  to 
Old  Testament  books  will  admit  of  such  an 
explanation.  And  it  would  also  be  a  question 
whether  Christ,  who  exposed  so  many  Jewish 
errors,  would  have  left  this  one  untouched. 
For  if  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch, 
nor  Joshua  the  book  of  that  name,  nor  David 
a  large  part  of  the  Psalms,  nor  Solomon  any 
of  the  three  books  ordinarily  attributed  to 
him,  nor  Isaiah  the  last  thirty-one  chapters 
of  Isaiah,  nor  Jeremiah  the  Lamentations, 
nor  Daniel  the  book  which  bears  his  name, 
etc. ;  and  if  the  history  of  Israel  is  so  entirely 
different  from  that  which  the  Old  Testament 
represents  it,  as  the  critics  would  have  us  be- 
lieve,— then  the  Jews  of  Christ's  day  labored 
under  a  deception  so  broad,  and  an  illusion  so 
profound,  that  we  can  scarcely  imagine  Jesus 
to  have  known  the  facts  and  yet  to  have  said 
nothing  whatever  about  them.  Of  course  it 
is  possible;  and  our  province  here  is  not  to 
discuss  the  merits  of  the  case.  Our  interest 
is  to  discover  whether  the  opinions  of  the 
critics    are    consistent    with    the    existence   of 


214  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

our  faith.  The  general  conclusion  reached 
is,  that  some  modification  of  our  accepted 
opinions  concerning  the  inerrancy  and  inspi- 
ration of  the  Scriptures,  and  of  the  date  and 
authorship  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  would 
be  compatible  with  everything  vitally  con- 
nected with  our  holy  religion.  But  such 
modifications  must  not  be  proposed  upon 
purely  literary  considerations,  nor  may  they 
be  carried  to  the  extent  to  which  many  critics 
would  carry  them.  There  is  no  danger  to 
the  truth ;  but  to  the  one  who  misses  the 
truth  there  is  danger.  Christian  truth  makes 
Christ  not  merely  the  founder  of  our  religion, 
but  the  object  of  our  love  and  the  source  of 
our  life.  Christianity  will  be  destroyed  by 
whatever  robs  us  of  this. 


THE    KND. 


X  xV  xtx  xt>'  -^V-  --^V  xV  x-^-A-  ■<•!'>-  ■<■!■>-  ■■^■i'x  -<V  ■■^V-  xV  -aV-  xVxVxV  X 


y '  X jx  yjv  y JX  ,-CJfr.  X jx  X jx  X JX  X jx  X  jx  Xjx,  ,Y j\  X jx  X  jx  X jx^  xjx  X jx  xjx  ^ 

THE  WORKS  OF 

BISHOP  STEPHEN  M.  MERRILL,  D.D,  LL  D. 

> 

Aspects  of  Christian  Experience. 

i6mo.     Cloth.     2gj  pages,     go  cents. 

"God  works  in  us  that  we  maj-  have  a  good  will,  and  with  us 
when  we  have  a  good  will,  and  in  all  his  inworking  he  respects 
the  nature  of  the  soul,  with  its  attributes  of  rationality  and  moral 
freedom.  The  divine  agency  neither  overpowers  nor  violates  the 
human  agency." — Extract. 

The  design  has  been  to  group  the  substantial  doctrines  of 
Christianity  with  reference  to  Christian  experience  in  such  a  way 
as  to  give  to  each  its  appropriate  place  and  importance,  without 
exalting  one  at  the  expense  of  the  other.  -Preface. 

Christian  Baptism.     Its  Subjects  and  Mode. 

161110.     Cloth.     310  pages,     go  cents. 

"  The  Gospel  comes  to  all,  in  every  age,  in  every  condition,  in 
the  polar  snows  or  the  burning  sands"  in  arid  wastes  or  mountain 
fastnesses,  in  palace  or  hospital,  in  the  air  of  freedom  or  within 
prison  walls;  and  it  comes  with  all  its  comforts  and  helps,  and  in 
perfect  adaptation  to  all.  But,  tested  by  this  rule,  exclusive  immer- 
sion is  another  sys,X.&\\\" —Extiact . 

I  have  thought  that  something  of  this  character,  inexpensive 
and  unpretentious,  ought  to  be  offered  to  those  who  lack  time  or 
disposition  to  study  more  critical  works,  and  with  this  view  I  send 
out  these  discourses,  believing  they  will  measurably  meet  a  real 
want,  and  contribute  toward  the  I'emoval  of  the  more  serious  diffi- 
culties from  the  minds  of  earnest  seekers  after  \.r\\\.\\.~ Preface. 

Digest  of  Methodist  Law ;  or,  Helps  in  the  Admin- 
istration of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

i6nw.     Cloth.     2JJ  pages,     go  cents. 

"The  design  of  all  disciplitiary  administration  should  be  kept 
in  mind.  It  is  the  honor  and  purity  of  tlie  Church,  and  the  spiritual 
good  of  the  parties  concerned.  It  "is  not  punishment.  The  Church 
has  no  power  or  mission  in  that  direction." — Extract. 

This  treatise  is  written  and  sent  out  with  the  hope  that  it  will 
prove  helpful  to  all  who  are  charged  with  the  duty  of  administering 
the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  and  especially  the  younger  ])astors.— 
preface. 

CRANSTON  &  CURTS,  Publishers. 


^Vjx  xjx  xixxjxxixxixxjxxjxxjxyjxxjxxjxx|x  xjxxjxxjxxjx'x^ 


WorA-s  ©/■  Bishop  Stephen  M.  Merrill,  D.  D.,  LL  D.— Continued. 


The  New  Testament  Idea  of  Hell. 

i6mo.     Cloth.     2j6  pages,    go  cents. 

"  The  clear,  steady  current  of  truth  sweeps  away  all  these 
devices  of  error,  like  drift  upon  the  flowing-  stream,  leaving  no 
resort  for  the  believer  in  the  Scriptures  but  to  acknowledge  the 
fact  that  the  hour  is  coming  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves 
shall  hear  his  voice  and  come  forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good  unto 
the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the 
resurrection  of  damnation."— ^;r/;-a<:A 

This  little  book  is  written  for  readers  of  the  English  Scrip- 
tures, and  not  for  those  having  access  to  the  wide  range  of  theo- 
logical discussions  found  in  the  ponderous  works  on  Systematic 
Divinity,  which  crowd  the  libraries  of  the  learned. — Pre/ace. 

The  Second  Coming  of  Christ,  Considered  in  its 
Relation  to  the  Millennium,  the  Resurrection, 
and  the  Judgment. 

i6mo.     Cloth.     282  pages,    go  cents. 

Hoping  that  it  may  be  the  means  of  saving  some  from  falling 
into  erratic  notions,  and  of  confirming  the  wavering  in  the  truth, 
and  of  stirring  up  in  others  a  profounder  sense  of  accountability 
to  God  in  a  coming  day,  I  prayerfully  send  this  volume  forth  upon 
its  mission,  bespeaking  for  "it  as  much  of  candor  in  its  perusal 
as  has  been  observed  in  its  preparation.— P;-<yac<?. 

The  Organic  Union  of  American  Methodism. 

i2mo.     Cloth.     112  pages.    45  cents. 

"  The  subject  of  the  future  relations  of  the  dissevered  branches 
of  the  Methodist  familv  is  sufficiently  important  to  attract  atten- 
tion to  the  utterances  o'f  any  one  who  feels  moved  to  give  expression 
to  thoughts  which  have  become  convictions,  especially  when 
clothed  in  the  language  of  moderation  and  sincerity."— C>/''«"'^ 
Flu  niitaph. 

From  the  Michigan  Christian  Advocate. 
k  will  be  greedily  read  by  the  large-heartec 

Methodism.  .     .     It  is  not  an  impromptu 

but  tiie  crystallization  of  years  of  observation  and  thought 


The  book  will  be  greedily  read  by  the  large-hearted  men  of  all 
branches  of  Methodism.  .     .     It  is  not  an  impromptu  production, 


CRANSTON  &  CURTS,  Publishers, 

CI3>TCI3:T2Nr-A.TI,    CmCi^O-O,    ST.    IjO"U"IS. 


v-f^ 


Date  Due 

^ 

